Plan Foundation Appendix A: PPJV Organization, Roles and Responsibilities

Home , American wigeon, Prairie Pothole Region

PLAN SECTION 1 FOUNDATION

Sean P. Fields, 2017 Editor James K. Ringelman, 2005 Editor

2017 Principal Authors: 2005 Principal Authors: Kevin W. Barnes Rocco J. D. Murano Daniel Casey David E. Naugle Joel S. Brice Neal D. Niemuth Kurt J. Forman Neal D. Niemuth Kaylan M. Carrlson Casey Stemler Diane A. Granfors Ronald E. Reynolds Sean P. Fields Mike L. Szymanski Rex R. Johnson James K. Ringelman Rex R. Johnson Johann A. Walker Carol A. Lively Chuck R. Loesch

2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | March 2017 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1.4 State Tactical Plans...... 1.6

PREFACE...... 1.7

INTRODUCTION TO THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION OF NORTH AMERICA...... 1.8 The U.S. Prairie Pothole Region – A National Ecological Treasure...... 1.8 Geography of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture...... 1.9 The Importance of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region to Wildlife...... 1.11 Anthropogenic Changes...... 1.14 Effects of Landscape Change on Predators...... 1.17 U.S. PPR Demographics...... 1.17

HISTORY, MISSION, AND VISION OF THE PPJV...... 1.18

CURRENT AND EMERGING ISSUES IN THE PPJV: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES...... 1.22 Agriculture and U.S. Farm Policy...... 1.22 Grassland Loss...... 1.23 Wetland Loss/Wetland Consolidation...... 1.24 Pesticides...... 1.25 Climate Change...... 1.26 Energy Development...... 1.28 Grassland Bird Conservation...... 1.29 Ecosystem Services of Wetlands and Grasslands...... 1.30 Societal Attitudes about Conservation...... 1.31

INTEGRATED BIRD CONSERVATION...... 1.32 Planning by Species Groups...... 1.32 Spatial Models...... 1.33 Integrating Species Plans with Strategic Habitat Conservation...... 1.34 Monitoring Landscape Change and Evaluating Demographic Responses...... 1.35 Important Considerations for Integrated Bird Conservation...... 1.37

WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION?...... 1.38 Development and Execution of State Tactical Plans...... 1.38

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR WETLAND AND GRASSLAND CONSERVATION IN THE PPJV...... 1.39

LITERATURE CITED...... 1.40 Plan Foundation Appendix A: PPJV Organization, Roles and Responsibilities...... 1.44 Plan Foundation Appendix B: International Collaboration...... 1.60 Plan Foundation Appendix C: Summary of the Communications Plan...... 1.62 Plan Foundation Appendix D: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations...... 1.63

Photo: Neal & MJ Mishler

1.2 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org The mission of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture is to implement conservation programs that sustain populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, other waterbirds and prairie landbirds at objective levels through targeted wetland and grassland protection, restoration and enhancement programs. These activities will be based on science and implemented in collaboration with multiple stakeholders.

Casey Stemler

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

he Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) bound- other waterbirds, and prairie landbirds at objective T aries include one-third (100,000 square miles) levels through targeted wetland and grassland pro- of North America’s Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). Its tection, restoration, and enhancement programs. uniqueness lies in the millions of depressional wet- The PPJV operates through partnerships to accom- lands that constitute one of the richest wetland sys- plish its mission. tems in the world. These “prairie potholes” and their The U.S. PPR is a dynamic place, socially as well surrounding grasslands are highly productive and as climatically. Nowhere is that more apparent than support an incredible diversity of bird life. The PPR in rural communities, which are experiencing dif- is breeding habitat for myriad wetland and grass- ficult social stresses due, in large part, to depopu- land birds and also supports significant numbers of lation and changing economies. Several factors are spring and fall migrants. involved, including human demography, new land Once a vast grassland, the PPR is now an agrarian uses, advances in farm equipment, new crops, and system dominated by cropland. Changes in land energy development. These factors affect migratory use have been, for the most part, detrimental to the bird resources as well as human populations and migratory birds that use the PPR. Many wetlands economies. The PPJV recognizes these interrelation- have been drained or degraded, and the loss of ships and believes that by addressing factors that native prairie—particularly in the eastern portion of impact both people and birds, we can have positive the PPJV—has been extensive. Despite these losses, impacts on both communities and avian conserva- millions of wetlands and large tracts of native prai- tion. Today, approximately 90% of the entire U.S. rie still remain. The PPR is one of the most altered— PPR is privately owned, most of which consists of yet also one of the most important—migratory bird working farms and ranches. This overwhelming habitats in the Western Hemisphere. It is the back- private landownership underlies the need to work bone of North America’s “duck factory,” and critical cooperatively with agricultural producers to achieve habitat for many wetland- and grassland-dependent the goals and objectives outlined in this plan. migratory birds. This plan provides a road map for integrating The PPR is envisioned as a place where abundant the conservation of all migratory birds under one populations of wetland and grassland birds can be framework. The process involves stepping down the sustained in perpetuity for the benefit of all people objectives of the four, international “species groups” who enjoy these species. Accordingly, the mission plans for waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and of the PPJV is to implement conservation programs landbirds as they apply to the PPJV. Population that sustain populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and habitat trends, coupled with knowledge of how

Casey Stemler

1.4 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org species respond to landscape change, will then be utilize habitats on both sides of the U.S. - Canadian used to build a biological foundation and set quan- border, it will be important to coordinate with the tifiable goals. Priority species have been selected to Prairie Habitat Joint Venture as the PPJV moves represent groups of birds of special interest, and forward in implementation. associated threats and limiting factors will be iden- The shorebird plan recognizes the importance of tified. Conservation actions and treatments will be the PPJV to breeders (13 species) as well as those proposed, and models will be developed that depict birds that use the PPJV for stopover habitat during where to implement particular conservation actions. migration (23 species). Much basic research needs After each species group has set spatial and program- to be conducted to better understand habitat use, matic priorities, an integrated landscape design will distribution, and vital rates. Recently developed, be developed by overlaying priority habitats for focal spatially-explicit Geographic Information System species from each bird group. Conservation actions (GIS) models have proven useful for predicting will then be partitioned into protection, restoration, shorebird abundance and distribution in the PPR. or enhancement projects for on-the-ground delivery. Highest priority management needs relate to Piping Monitoring and evaluation will be used to measure Plover and Mountain Plover. Protection of existing performance and provide feedback to improve future wetlands and grasslands is a high priority; recov- management performance. ery of declining populations will require additional Currently, the four bird groups differ markedly in focus on enhancement of these habitats that have what is known concerning their population status, been degraded. habitat requirements, and understanding of factors that most affect population change. Goals and objectives of the four bird plans reflect this diverse For waterfowl, the duck state of knowledge. population boom that For waterfowl, the duck population boom that occurred during 2007-2014 occurred during 2007-2014 is considered evidence is considered evidence of of the potential capacity of the PPJV to recruit ducks when wet conditions prevail. Accordingly, the foun- the potential capacity of the dation of the waterfowl plan is to maintain the prai- PPJV to recruit ducks when rie ecosystem to support pulses of landscape level wet conditions prevail. productivity to maximize reproductive potential for breeding waterfowl. This will require that 1.78 million wetland acres and 10.8 million grassland acres Waterbirds constitute an important group of spe- remain in the PPJV landscape. Given that habitat cies in the PPJV. The PPR contains over 60% of the loss occurs at rates higher than protection, it is continental breeding population of Franklin’s Gull; unreasonable to assume that all priority acres can over 50% of the continental population of Pied-billed be perpetually protected. However, it is critical that Grebe, American Bittern, Sora, American Coot, and the remainder of these high-priority, unprotected Black Tern; and approximately 30% of the American wetlands and grasslands be perpetually available White Pelican and California Gull populations. The for breeding waterfowl. For the 5-year period cov- first objective of waterbird conservation in the PPJV ered by this plan (2017-2022), objectives for per- is protection of existing wetlands and grasslands. petual protection include 133,000 acres of priority Areas to be conserved can be prioritized through wetland and 446,000 acres of priority grassland application of spatially explicit habitat models, and habitats. Term-limited conservation programs that risk assessment should also be included in the pri- complement perpetual protection programs will be oritization process. Retention and development of important to keeping these habitats available in the wildlife-friendly agriculture programs (e.g., “Swamp- near future. In addition, the waterfowl plan sets a buster” provision in U.S. Farm Bill) will also have a goal of restoring 36,000 wetland acres and 296,000 major impact on waterbird conservation in the PPR acres of grasslands associated with priority water- by helping preserve the existing wetland and upland fowl population. Because waterfowl populations habitat base.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.5 the protection, restoration, and enhancement of prairie wetland, riparian, grassland, and sagebrush steppe communities.

The common thread that runs through each plan is the protection of existing wetlands and native grasslands. At this juncture, there is potential for rapid progress in integrated planning and conservation. However, as we embrace the philosophy of integrated, all-bird conservation, there are some important principles to bear in mind. These include: (1) the merits of separate planning and integrated action, (2) the potential pitfalls of identifying geo-

Neal & MJ Mishler graphic priorities strictly on the basis of spatial overlap, and (3) an awareness that managing for one species will impact the welfare of another. These The landbird plan recognizes the importance of concerns notwithstanding, the planning framework grasslands – particularly native prairie – to declining presented here should provide for future growth populations of grassland songbirds. Approximately and opportunities under the paradigm of integrated, 189 species of birds breed in the Prairie Potholes “all-bird” conservation. Bird Conservation Region (BCR 11), which closely approximates the area encompassed by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture in the United States and the State Tactical Plans Prairie Habitat Joint Venture in Canada. Sixteen Detailed step-down plans for implementing the bird species have more than 20% of their continental goals and objectives identified in this plan are pro- breeding population in the PPR. At the top of this list vided as State Tactical Plans for each of the 5 PPJV are four landbirds considered to be high priorities states. The supplemental state-level plans concisely by Partners In Flight: Baird’s Sparrow, with >90% describe the priority resources and the implementa- of its population in the PPR, Sprague’s Pipit, Chest- tion strategies to conserve those resources over the nut-collared Longspur, and McCown’s Longspur. next 5 years. Future conservation needs are also The theme of Partners In Flight (PIF) has always identified in the context of research, funding, staff been to “keep common birds common.” As a starting and public policy at the state level. Additionally, point for Watch List species, the 2016 continental methods for monitoring and evaluating the efficacy plan set population objectives for the short term (10 of conservation strategies and the resulting effects years) and the long term (30 years). Habitat conser- on priority species are described. State Tactical vation strategies for other prairie wildlife, including Plans complement the adaptive planning framework the migratory birds addressed by the other bird ini- the PPJV has embraced since its inception and pro- tiatives, will generally not differ substantially from vide a level of partner collaboration for leveraging those strategies implemented to meet the needs of resources to accomplish the overarching PPJV goals waterfowl. Implementation strategies will focus on at the state level.

State Tactical Plans Detailed step-down plans for implementing the goals and objectives identified in this plan are provided as State Tactical Plans for each of the 5 PPJV states. The supplemental state-level plans concisely describe the priority resources and the implementation strategies to conserve those resources over the next 5 years.

1.6 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org PREFACE

he 2005 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) needs across the entire PPJV landscape. Many of T Implementation Plan is a foundational doc- the concepts and much of the document text and ument detailing the history, core values, and organization were retained in this update. Therefore, long-term conservation goals of the Joint Venture. the 2005 authors are recognized in this update with Although the 2005 plan incorporated the most the 2017 authors. This 2017 PPJV Implementation current information of the time, new information, Plan is a document that continues to spotlight the challenges, and opportunities across the U.S. partnership’s common ground while detailing the Prairie Pothole Region warranted an update to the strength of each partner’s approach to integrated existing plan. For example, agricultural technology bird conservation for the next 5 years (2017-2021).1 and policy have changed, energy development has expanded, and more is known about conservation

1 Recommended citation: Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. 2017. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan. S. P. Fields, editor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Casey Stemler

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.7 INTRODUCTION TO THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION OF NORTH AMERICA

he Prairie Pothole Region of North America cropland. However, technological advancements and T (PPR; Figure 1) is a unique and extraordinary economic drivers continue to re-define the mean- ecosystem. Before crop-based agriculture began to ing of “tillable ground.” Today, approximately 90% transform the landscape (circa 1890), the region of the entire U.S. PPR is privately owned, most of was part of one of the largest grassland-wetland which consists of working farms and ranches. This ecosystems on earth. In the late 1700s, between 7 overwhelming private landownership underlies the and 8 million acres of wetlands existed in the North need to work with agricultural producers to achieve Dakota and South Dakota portion of the U.S. Prairie the goals and objectives outlined in this plan. Pothole Region alone (U.S. PPR; Dahl 1990). Early pioneers described portions of southern Minnesota The U.S. Prairie Pothole Region – and northern Iowa as impassable during spring and A National Ecological Treasure early summer due to the abundant ponds and The U.S. PPR is a young ecoregion in geologic time. marshes. The innumerable wetlands and vast grasslands were exceptionally important to Western It is a subtly heterogeneous region from east to Hemispheric avifauna, particularly migratory water- west and north to south; however, anthropogenic fowl, shorebirds, and grassland birds. changes to the U.S. PPR landscape have magnified this heterogeneity creating pronounced differences in habitats, species distribution and abundance, and approaches to conservation across the region. Its unifying features are a result of recent glacial history: the retreat of the Late Wisconsin glaciers at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch from 13,000 to 10,000 years ago left in their wake shallow wetlands of unparalleled density and productivity in North America. Eventually, the rolling spaces between these “prairie potholes” became dominated by vast grasslands that confronted European settlers and reminded many of an ocean with only an occasional thin line of trees along a creek suggesting a distant shoreline.

This is obviously a simplified description of the Figure 1. The Prairie Pothole Region of North America region. Traveling southeast to northwest across the U.S. PPR, grassland communities change with As a result of the nation’s westward expansion, the precipitation and frequency of drought from the lure of fertile soils and a strong northern European tallgrass prairie in the south and east, including work ethic converged in an unprecedented effort Iowa where total annual precipitation averages to plow the prairie and drain its wetlands. Wetland 30-35", lowland terrain in Minnesota (25-30") and drainage accelerated dramatically during the 1940s the Red River Valley, to mixed-grass prairie west of (Johnson and Higgins 1997). Today, more than half the James River (20-25"), and west and northward of the historic U.S. PPR wetlands are gone (Dahl and along the Missouri Coteau (15-20"), to dry mixed- Johnson 1991), and in the eastern parts of the region grass prairie across northern Montana (10-15") to fewer than 10% of the original potholes and less than the Front Range region of the Rocky Mountains. 1% of the native prairie remain. Nearly 70% of the original grasslands now support crop production. Wetland heterogeneity is more dependent on terrain The conversion of grassland to cropland peaked in produced by local glacial processes. Wetland basins the 1920s, and by 1960 it was generally believed are classified most often by their degree of perma- that all of the tillable ground had been converted to nence at their deepest point. Saturated wetlands are

1.8 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org flatlands with an upwelling of groundwater; other morphology exist across the PPJV. These differences prairie potholes are depressional basins. Temporary are attributable to the pre-glacial topography and wetland basins hold water for 7-30 days during the the pace and manner of glacial melting. Coupled growing season; seasonal basins 30-90 days; semi- with current climatic factors, these differences permanent basins throughout the growing season in most years with normal precipitation; and permanent basins, or lakes, go dry only during periods of prolonged, exceptional drought (Stewart and Kantrud 1971, Cowardin et al. 1979). Each has its own predominant plant and animal communities and distinctive role in local complexes of wetland basins. Lateral and terminal moraines tend to be hilly and studded with numerous small, steep- sided basins with seasonal and semipermanent water regimes in the east and seasonal water regimes in the west. In outwash plains Figure 2. States and counties in the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture flowing from the melting glaciers and glacial lake beds, much of this terrain is buried under stratified shape current land use and conservation actions. sediment. These regions tend to be flatter with high These major physiographic regions (Figure 3) are densities of larger and often saturated, temporary described below. and seasonal basins. For example, wetlands histor- Glacial Lakes Agassiz and Dakota – Glacial Lake ically covered at least 24% of the PPR of Iowa (C. Agassiz and Lake Dakota cut drainage outlets during Ensminger, unpubl. data) and 18-20% of the Min- the period of glacial retreat. These outlets ultimately nesota PPR (R. Johnson, unpubl. data) compared became the Minnesota, Red, and James Rivers. to 9% of the Missouri Coteau. Historically, areas The lacustrine sediment layer beneath the lakes is like the Missouri Coteau contributed periodically to exceptionally flat, and the historic prairie was often waterfowl population eruptions when the whole U.S. saturated with scattered, small, shallow wetland PPR was wet, an uncommon occurrence, but Iowa basins. The bed of Lake Agassiz, commonly called and southern Minnesota and much of the Central the Red River Valley of the North, was undoubtedly Lowlands in eastern North and South Dakota were once one of the most impressive spring migration the breadbasket for waterfowl in average years. staging areas for waterfowl and shorebirds in North America. Today the area has been drained so heav- Geography of the Prairie Pothole ily that in many areas no wetlands or grassland Joint Venture remains; where they do remain, the combination of The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) includes wetlands in a low relief landscape and grazed native counties in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South grasslands sustain some of the highest densities Dakota, and Montana (Figure 2), west of the Missis- of historically abundant waterfowl, waterbirds and sippi River, east of the Rocky Mountains, and east shorebirds in the eastern U.S. PPR. and north of the Missouri River and conforms as closely as county boundaries permit to the U.S. PPR. Subtle, but meaningful differences in landscape

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.9 Figure 3. Physiographic Regions of the Steep topographic relief, especially at the northern Prairie Pothole Joint Venture end along the margins of the Coteau, has prohibited Over most of the Red River Valley, intensive resto- some tillage agriculture and wetland drainage to ration of the grassland-wetland complex is the only date. Thus, the northern end of the Prairie Coteau is one of the eastern-most, relatively intact grasslands available conservation practice. High agricultural in North America. Deeper basins and relatively production potential (particularly for the heav- abundant precipitation make this area a stronghold ily subsidized sugar beet industry) and high land of waterfowl production when more westerly areas values have prohibited most habitat restoration, of the U.S. PPR are dry. Wetland and grassland pro- although USDA programs directed primarily at flood tection through fee title and easement acquisitions damage reduction are promising. The sandy beach are priority conservation actions. The Prairie Coteau ridges that border the Valley in Minnesota and North slopes inward and southward, where its character- Dakota still support some large grasslands and the istics and conservation priorities are more similar to conservation of these for grassland land birds and the Drift Prairie. shorebirds is a priority. Drift Prairie – This region demarks the primary The bed of Lake Dakota, principally in South paths of glacial advance. Its glacial history caused Dakota, has been less heavily drained; temporary the Drift Prairie to be shaped like an inverted Y, the and seasonal wetlands are abundant, but deeper western lobe extending to the Missouri River in east- wetlands are few. These wetlands remain important ern South Dakota, and the eastern (or Des Moines) spring migration habitat and their protection as lobe extending through western Minnesota into such is a priority. central Iowa. Terrain relief is generally low, and wet- Prairie Coteau – This region is a wedge-shaped, lands tend to be small and shallow, with temporary pre-glacial plateau. It was created when glaciers and seasonal wetland basins predominating and advanced and scoured up sediment from the slopes exceptionally abundant in many areas. This area and deposited it, along with embedded blocks of ice, is well suited to tillage agriculture, and the asso- on the surface. After glacial retreat, the result was a ciated conversion of wetlands and grasslands has landscape of moderate to high relief with numerous been extensive. Habitat loss has been most severe small, steep-sided, semi-permanent wetland basins. in the southeast. In the west, a drier climate has

1.10 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org slowed the expansion of tillage agriculture but pres- suitable only for grazing. However, the development sures on wetlands and grasslands have escalated. of drought-tolerant crops has stimulated the plowing During wet periods when seasonal basins retain and cultivation of vast tracts of prairie. As in other water throughout the brood-raising period, the Drift locales, intensification of agriculture has caused the Prairie provides valuable migration habitat and loss and degradation of wetlands. Fortunately, large may help facilitate periodic “booms” in continental expanses of native prairie still exist in this region, waterfowl populations like that which occurred in which provide an opportunity for grassland and the 1990s. A mixed approach of habitat protection wetland easements to protect the remaining habi- and restoration, complemented by enhancement tat. In addition, land owned and managed by federal techniques in a few key areas, characterizes the agencies receives an added measure of protection approach of PPJV partners. The positive impact of because actions are subject to a suite of regulatory agricultural programs, especially the Conservation reviews and statutes. The glaciated grasslands of Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Montana are a priority for conservation/protection Program (WRP), and successor programs under since several priority grassland bird species exten- the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program sively use this area for breeding, including pintail (ACEP), cannot be over emphasized. during favorable habitat conditions.

Missouri Coteau and Coteau Slope – The Missouri Coteau was formed in ways similar to the Prairie The Importance of the U.S. Prairie Coteau. Comparatively steep terrain and relatively Pothole Region to Wildlife poor soils have, until recently, limited tillage agri- The historic PPR was a mecca for breeding water- culture. However, new crops and crop varieties, fowl unparalleled anywhere else in North America. coupled with favorable commodity support policies, Ducks produced in the U.S. PPR are harvested in 49 have increased the rate of grassland loss in recent states of the U.S. (the only exception being Hawaii) years, particularly in South Dakota. Intact grass- as well as Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and lands and abundant seasonal wetland basins make northern South America (Figure 4). the Missouri Coteau a continental mainstay for many species of waterfowl and other wetland and grassland birds. The Coteau Slope that borders the Missouri River has an older glacial history and is characterized by fewer depressional wetlands and more coulees and streams, many of which are dry for most of the year. Consequently, the Coteau Slope is a lower priority for waterfowl, but is important habitat for many priority species of grassland land birds. Grassland and wetland protection are the primary goals in these physiographic regions.

Montana Glaciated Grasslands – An area of slight to moderate relief, the Montana Glaciated Grasslands are dry because of the “rain-shadow effect” of the Rocky Mountains. This is dry mixed-grass prairie, adapted to the natural forces of drought, wind, and Figure 4. Hunter band returns from ducks banded in the U.S. PPR fire. For wetland-dependent birds, it is a boom- and-bust system. During periods of deluge, wetland Although every regular breeding species of water- communities of the Montana grasslands can be fowl occurs in each state, the diversity of species extremely productive breeding habitats for ducks. increases from southeast to northwest. In Iowa and Several species, most notably northern pintails, set- Minnesota, mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), blue- tle to breed in this region when wetlands are flooded winged teal (Anas discors), and wood ducks (Aix in early spring. Owing to its droughty nature, the sponsa) predominate, while in North Dakota, South Montana Glaciated Grasslands were once thought Dakota, and Montana the species are more diverse

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.11 – mallards, blue-winged teal, northern pintail (Anas well-known, stopover sites. Ironically, removal of acuta), gadwall (Anas strepera), northern shoveler residual emergent vegetation by farming in areas (Anas clypeata) and American wigeon (Anas amer- without extensive grazing may have improved icana) among other dabbling and diving ducks are habitat for some shorebirds that use shallow wet- the common species (see Waterfowl Section Appen- lands. However, drainage of these wetlands could dix A). Despite agricultural conversion of wetlands be significantly affecting populations of some of and grasslands, the U.S. PPR remains a national these species, especially short-distance migrants treasure for its waterfowl and other wildlife. In the that require regular feeding stops to refuel and add late 2000s, when the entire U.S. PPR was wet, the weight from high-protein invertebrates to continue region supported nearly 14 million ducks, and in a migration. Fortunately, in most years even drained typical year is believed to be able to sustain up to wetlands and sheet water provide abundant, food- 10 million ducks. Based on data from the U.S. Fish rich habitat for shorebirds in the spring, albeit for and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Canadian Wildlife brief periods. Terrain remodeling and sediment Service (CWS) Waterfowl Breeding Population and accumulation in farmed-through shallow wetlands Habitat Survey (WBPHS), the PPR portion of the may be further impairing their value for shorebirds eastern Dakotas, which comprises just 7% of the and other wetland species as shallow depressions traditional survey area, supported about 22% of the slowly disappear. total breeding pairs counted throughout the entire survey area in the US and Canada. The PPR por- U.S. PPR wetlands provide habitat for at least tions of Minnesota, Iowa, and Montana contribute 40 species of waterbirds such as terns and gulls, more to that total. secretive marshbirds like rails and bitterns, and American white pelicans. Black terns are known to use quality seasonal and semi-permanent basins, and, as surveys expand, more species are found or found to be more common than believed. One such example is the king rail, currently found at number of sites in the Iowa PPR where it was thought to be extirpated. Recolonization and range expansion may also be factors in these observations.

Grassland birds are a group of North American Neal & MJ Mishler species of special concern because their populations are declining faster than any other group of birds (Knopf 1994, Sauer and Link 2011). In particular, 4 The historic production of breeding ducks must species of mixed-grass specialists are of conservation have made these estimates pale by comparison. concern due to ongoing population declines (Sauer For example, in Iowa, where survey-based models 2014): Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), Baird’s yield current estimates of about 57,000 breeding sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), McCown’s longspur pairs in average years, historical wetlands probably (Rhynchophanes mccownii) and chestnut-collared once supported over 1.1 million pairs (Bishop 1981, longspur (Calcarius ornatus). Of the three grassland Tiner 1984). Southern Minnesota production was ecosystems in the U.S. PPR (Figure 5), the tallgrass similarly impressive. ecosystem has suffered the greatest losses of habi- The value of the U.S. PPR to wildlife goes far beyond tat and populations, with many species being extir- waterfowl, providing breeding or migration stopover pated, followed by the mixed-grass and dry mix- habitat for 36 of 50 shorebird species that regu- grass prairies in order of severity of habitat loss and larly occur in the US, breeding habitat for 13 of 20 impacts to populations. These losses persist. Dahl species, and migration stopover habitat for 23 of (2014) estimated that South Dakota alone had lost 36 species (Skagen and Thompson 2001). Skagen 600,000 acres of grassland to cropland conversion et al. (2008) found that in wet years when small from 1997-2009 with further losses since then with basins are ponded, at least 98% of shorebirds use the return of USDA Conservation Reserve Program small wetland habitats, rather than large, often (CRP) grasslands to cropland.

1.12 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Figure 5. Grassland ecoregions of the PPJV essential links in a chain of migratory habitat that based on Wright and Bailey (1982). runs the length of the Western Hemisphere.

Some grassland bird species are “area sensitive,” Most recently, monarch butterflies and other requiring relatively large blocks of grassland to set- pollinators have received an immense amount of tle and breed (Johnson and Igl 2001, Davis 2004). attention because of rapid population declines, Moreover, nesting success of ground nesting birds particularly in the tallgrass portion of the U.S. PPR, including waterfowl may be higher in large grass- and the potential ramifications of declining pollina- land patches. Fragmentation of grasslands reduces tor populations to the security of the world’s food habitat suitability for many native species and may supply. For example, producers in U.S. PPR states reduce production to a level below that needed for maintained 40% of the U.S. honey bee colonies that population maintenance. produced 51% of the 2014 national honey produc- U.S. PPR wetlands are critical for migrating water- tion (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2016). fowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds; waves of species The causal factor for pollinator declines appears to pass through the region each spring and fall. The be the continuing loss of native habitat to cropland only consistent exceptions seem to be in the Iowa and cropland technology including the use of gly- and southern Minnesota PPR where birds may phosphate herbicide and neonicotinoid-treated seed. encounter widespread habitat loss which has Loss of these species is a graphic illustration of the undoubtedly caused a shift in migration patterns, destabilization of ecosystems and the ecosystem ser- likely affected migration survival rates of some spe- vices provided to humans that occurs with extensive cies, and potentially affected fecundity. Thus, even habitat loss. If there is a positive note in this emerg- though the U.S. PPR is at the northern edge of the ing crisis it is that, in general, what is good for one country, it is a continental nexus for species migrat- species of conservation concern is generally good for ing to and from the southern U.S., Mexico, Central another, making habitat protection, restoration and America, and South America. Northern Pintails win- management in the U.S. PPR even more critical. For tering in California’s Central Valley often fly though example, tallgrass prairie restoration efforts provide the PPR, remaining to breed or reversing direction habitat for several priority species of grassland birds, to northern Canada and Alaska (Miller et al. 2005). while providing nectar source plants and milkweed Remaining U.S. PPR wetlands and grasslands are for butterflies and other pollinators.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.13 Anthropogenic Changes farming, and the lack of a comparable safety net for livestock producers, have encouraged farming in To settlers emerging from the shaded eastern these marginal regions in recent years. Development deciduous forests, the brightness of the U.S. PPR and application of genetically modified drought-tol- prairies was blinding. In Iowa, the first area settled, erant crops have also exacerbated conversion of woodlands sold for about $35-50/acre while prairie, marginal croplands. which was thought to be less fertile, could be had for $3-5/acre. Once the woodlands were taken up, settlers on the prairie quickly set about changing the The Swamp Land Act of 1850 environment. The first change in the 1850s was to cultivate the tough, deep tallgrass prairie sod with authorized the transfer of plows pulled by teams of oxen. If a farmer lacked federally owned wetlands this equipment he often contracted the first plowing to states that would agree for as much as $3-4/acre, a substantial amount of money in the late 1800s. Farther west, in the to drain the land and turn it mixed-grass prairie of the Vermillion River in South to productive, presumably Dakota, a Clay County farmer advertised for some- agricultural, use. one to break 20 acres of prairie for $20. In 1837, a man named John Deere copied an earlier design for a plow that was self-scouring and had thousands As the last of the prairie in the eastern U.S. PPR was made using New England rolled steel, which he ped- plowed, farmers began eyeing the wetland “waste- dled across the eastern PPR of Iowa, Minnesota and lands” as new sources of income. Some wetlands eastern North and South Dakota. By 1910, most of were used for hay for livestock and others were Iowa’s native prairie had been plowed under, followed drained and planted to crops. Besides, most were shortly after by the prairies of southern Minnesota, considered a nuisance to travel and to farm around, the Red River Valley, and the eastern tier of counties especially as mechanized farming became the stan- in the Dakotas. The first crops were predominantly dard in the early 1900s. small grains, but over the years, corn and eventually The Swamp Land Act of 1850 authorized the trans- corn and soybean rotations became king. fer of federally owned wetlands to states that would agree to drain the land and turn it to productive, presumably agricultural, use. Primarily aimed at the development of Florida’s Everglades, the law also had application elsewhere, and spurred drainage and development in many areas of the United States. Later considered to have been ecologically problematic, many of its provisions were eventually reversed by the Wetland Protection Act of 1972 and later legislation; however, its historical effects on U.S. development and settlement patterns remained. The first drainage districts in Iowa were established in 1908. In South Dakota, a ditch then known as the “Little Panama” was excavated from Casey Stemler 1908-1910 across Yankton County to the Vermillion River draining about 70,000 acres of wetland.

Precipitation patterns across the U.S. PPR have Hilly, morainal topography tends to be harder to profoundly affected land conversion to agricul- drain, thus has the highest remaining density of ture and crop types. Much of the Missouri Coteau wetlands. Drainage has been most extensive in the in North Dakota and South Dakota and the dry flatter outwash plain, especially in the eastern U.S. mixed-grass prairie of Montana remain rangeland. PPR (Johnson and Higgins 1997), and the loss of However, farm programs that reduce the risks of these wetlands has reduced the cyclic peaks in duck

1.14 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org It is important that this updated plan be built on a foundation of accumulated knowledge and that this knowledge be used as a context by which we set our future direction.

Neal & MJ Mishler

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.15 production and made the troughs in duck numbers were tilled in the early 20th century and returned deeper than they ever were historically. By the end to grass after the Dust Bowl of the “Dirty Thirties.” of the 20th century, wetland basins had declined by Thus a whole new suite of species is now at risk of 50% in North Dakota, 35% in South Dakota, 80% population decline or even extirpation and leading in the PPR of Minnesota, and 99% in Iowa (Bishop one to ask, “Are we setting the stage for another 1981; Tiner 1984; Johnson and Kjellsen, unpubl. dust bowl?” data for Minnesota). This drainage continues today. The result of wetland drainage and loss of grass- Between 1997 and 2007, Minnesota lost 18% of its lands that historically held water and slowed runoff remaining PPR wetlands, Iowa lost 14%, and North has been that water levels in remaining wetlands and South Dakota lost 4-5%, with only Montana have often increased, altering their hydrology (Wil- showing a slight gain (Dahl 2014). termuth 2014). In the case of rivers, spring flows Grassland losses have been just as dramatic in and flooding tend to be more frequent and longer in some cases in recent years (Dahl 2014, Lark et al. duration, and summer and fall low flows tend to be 2015) with federal farming subsidies reducing the lower because of water table depression. In effect, in economic risks of tilling marginal soils and slopes intensively drained parts of the U.S. PPR, drainage in areas with climates better suited to livestock pro- has induced a nearly permanent condition of spring duction than tillage agriculture. Many of these lands and summer drought.

Rick Bohn

1.16 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Effects of Landscape food production. The unintended consequences of Change on Predators these programs were that the percentage of Amer- icans living on farms dropped from 41% in 1900 An important consideration for avian conservation to 1.9% in 2000, and the average number of crop in the U.S. PPR is the population trends of certain types grown on farms declined from 5 to 2. By the avian and mammalian species that prey on nesting end of the century, the number of farms dropped by birds, their newly hatched young, and unhatched 63% and average farm size rose by 67%. Further, eggs. When the northern plains were first settled, the percent that agriculture production comprised farmsteads, towns, and cities increased coincident of the GDP declined from 7.7% in 1930 to 0.7% in with the initial conversion to cropland which left a 2002 as surplus crops were dumped on the market wake of denning sites like culverts and rock piles for at prices less than the cost of production (Demitri mesocarnivores (e.g., red fox, coyote, raccoon, and et al. 2005). skunk). The number of farms peaked in the 1920s, and has declined since. The resulting “rural depop- Inevitably, these changes led to changes in the rural ulation” of the U.S. PPR has left many abandoned population of the U.S. PPR and a destabilization of farmsteads and other human structures to provide the region’s economy. Outmigration of the popula- additional sites favorable to mesocarnivores. These tion from rural U.S. PPR counties is well known. features—coupled with abundant agricultural foods, About 70% of all U.S. PPR counties lost population the extirpation of some “keystone” species, and the between 2000 and 2010 (USDA Economic Research suppression of fire and an increase in the number of Service 2015). The results have included fewer and trees—have had the net effect of changing the distri- larger farms, a declining and aging rural population, bution and increasing the abundance of mesocarni- school consolidation, loss of local medical care and vores in addition to species such as badgers, mink, social services, business closings because of fewer and ground squirrels, along with avian predators and fewer customers, and declining home values. In such as red-tailed hawks, and great-horned owls 1950, the USDA Economic Research Service deter- (Sargeant et al. 1993). The impact of these species mined that virtually every county in the U.S. PPR, on their prey is magnified by fragmented habitats except those including the region’s largest cities, that give rise to edges, perches, and other features derived at least 20% of total income in the county that enhance predator foraging efficiency. While from agriculture. By 2000, only 6 Iowa PPR counties, long-term decreases in nesting success are well doc- 10 Minnesota counties, and about half the counties umented for ducks (Drever et al. 2004), there also is in North and South Dakota derived 15% or more of evidence that other avian groups may have suffered total income from farming-related activities (Demitri the same fate (Jones et al. 2010, Davis et al. 2012). et al. 2005). More and more farmers were relying on off-farm earnings to augment their income, from U.S. PPR Demographics 30% of farmers in 1930 to 93% in 2002. The human populations of the U.S. PPR and agricul- Gascoigne et al. (2013) reported that counties ture have historically been inextricably intertwined. with quality of life amenities including habitat for High crop prices from 1910-1918, the “golden age” outdoor recreation tended to attract business at a of agriculture in the U.S., stimulated massive land significantly higher rate than counties with fewer of conversion. In the early 20th century, the institution these amenities, and it was these businesses that of government farming subsidies liberalized bank created off-farm income and contributed to rural loans to farmers who were encouraged by bankers economic growth. Moreover, of money spent on till- to “improve” their land to qualify for higher loans. As age agriculture returns, 1-2% was recycled within crop prices fell in response to overproduction, the the local community, the rest being disseminated beginnings of an agricultural safety net were insti- in the national and global economy. By contrast, tuted in the 1920s. The provisions included direct money spent in local businesses like motels and assistance by federal and state agricultural agencies hotels, restaurants, and main street businesses for wetland drainage and were intended to insure returns as much as 50 cents on the dollar to the profits to individual farmers and secure domestic local community.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.17 HISTORY, MISSION, AND VISION OF THE PPJV

The vision of the Prairie Pothole In 1987, 6 regional self-directed partnerships (called Joint Venture is to have abundant Joint Ventures) involving Federal, State and local populations of waterfowl and other government agencies, non-governmental conservation organizations, corporations, Tribes, and other wetland and grassland birds that entities were formed to implement the NAWMP. The can be sustained in perpetuity. PPJV is one of the 6 original joint ventures. Today, he joint ventures formed under the North Amer- with the advent of an all migratory bird focus, joint T ican Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) are ventures cover virtually all of the conterminous U.S., one of the most visible conservation successes of Hawaii, and large regions of Alaska and Canada. the last century. Joint ventures work for one simple A vital function of the PPJV is as an information/ reason: partners have realized that they can achieve coordination resource for partners and external more through collaboration than they can accom- entities. To that end, The PPJV Management Board, plish acting alone. Partnerships are the engines that the PPJV Technical Committee, and the agencies, drive joint ventures to success. organizations, and individuals share information and coordinate actions. PPJV members: »»Are guided by biology-based planning that is refined through science-based research and evaluation. »»Work together to define and attain the landscape conditions needed to foster increasing and sustainable populations of wetland and grassland birds. »»Collaborate and forge alliances with a variety of conservation and community efforts in the development of conservation, economic and social policies and programs that positively benefit grassland and wetland resources across the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region landscape. »»Strive to continually improve scientific knowledge Kevin Barnes and the conservation approach of bird conservation.

Since its inception, the PPJV has used the best The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) was available science to guide programmatic decisions established in 1987 under the NAWMP, the largest and develop management tools. These tools include cooperative effort ever initiated to protect wetlands, traditional wildlife management techniques targeted waterfowl, and other wildlife. The Plan committed at one or more species, as well as broader conser- the United States, Canada, and Mexico to reviving vation efforts intended to provide multiple social, North American waterfowl populations through the economic, and environmental benefits. Most notable retention and restoration of crucial wetland and among the latter are USDA programs such as the upland habitats across the continent. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetland

The mission of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture is to implement conservation programs that sustain populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, other waterbirds and prairie landbirds at objective levels through targeted wetland and grassland protection, restoration and enhancement programs. These activities will be based on science and implemented in collaboration with multiple stakeholders.

1.18 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve for the retention of prime waterfowl breeding habi- Enhancement Program (CREP), and the successor tat were discussed in this 15-year plan. Emphasis programs administered under the Agricultural was on actions that would be taken by the U.S. Fish Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The PPJV and Wildlife Service. In addition to waterfowl, the partners use existing and emerging conservation Concept Plan noted that “the wetland and upland programs to enhance the collective benefits to habitats of the Region provide breeding areas for migratory and non-migratory birds while respecting numerous marsh, wading, and shorebirds; gulls the unique authorities, priorities and purposes of and terns; raptors; song birds; and other avian each partner. species,” and suggested that “further protection of prairie potholes and their associated uplands will PPJV partners will work provide breeding habitat for many avian species, in together to define and attain addition to the ducks for which the areas are pri- the landscape conditions marily managed. needed to foster increasing In August 1988, the purpose of the PPJV was and sustainable populations of defined by partners as: “to involve the public ina wetland and grassland birds. broad scale, unified effort to increase waterfowl populations by preserving, restoring, and enhanc- Conservation creates a legacy by building on cumu- ing wildlife habitat in the PPR of the U.S.” Special lative successes, and important lessons are learned emphasis was given to protecting and enhancing 1.1 from experiences and mistakes. The PPJV must million acres of breeding habitat; promoting habitat account for, and adjust to, a dynamically changing improvement on private lands; increasing waterfowl landscape. For these reasons, it is important that production on public wildlife areas (including habi- this revised plan be built on a foundation of accu- tat improvement, controlling disease and predators); mulated knowledge and this knowledge used as a addressing research issues to improve management context by which the PPJV sets its future direction. performance; seeking to integrate wildlife, agricul- In late 1987, a PPJV Steering Committee that rep- ture and water development programs; and evalu- resented major partners in the U.S. prairies was ating PPJV efforts and the response of waterfowl to formed and a Joint Venture Coordinator was identi- habitat projects. fied. State Action Groups with respective Coordina- In April of 1989, the first PPJV Implementation Plan tors were established. Five PPJV “Specialty Teams” was completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were created to develop an Implementation Plan, as (USFWS) Concept Plan and the Central Flyway Mallard well as address issues of communications, funding, Management Plan (March 1985) provided background waterfowl population modeling, and revenue shar- information. The Plan noted that “the strategies out- ing. Over time, the organization and functions of the lined in this plan provide general guidance for future PPJV have evolved to address the complex business management actions that will benefit at least 10 key of conservation. Readers are referred to Appendix duck species as well as migratory nongame birds that A. – Organization, Function and Responsibilities, for breed in the Region; contribute towards countless additional details. hours of consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife A “step-down” planning process was begun in related activities; and contribute millions of dollars 1987 that used objectives from the NAWMP as a to regional, national, and international economies.” Through the “step-down” planning process, State basis to establish plans for the PPJV. These plans, plans would include those strategies and actions that to be implemented at the state and project level, would be most appropriate for each state in the PPJV. identified specific habitat retention, management, and enhancement strategies. In June of 1988, the Priority actions included planning and evaluation, “Concept Plan for Waterfowl Habitat Protection – managing and enhancing public and private lands, U.S. Portion of the Prairie Potholes and Parklands” communications and education, land acquisitions, was released. The goals, objectives, and strategies fund raising, and affecting legislation and regulations.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.19 The objective for the original Implementation Plan Update Committee to develop the 1995 PPJV Imple- was to “Maintain an average breeding population mentation Plan. in years of average environmental conditions of The 1995 Plan continued to recognize the impor- 6.8 million ducks (1.2 million mallards and 1.1 tance of working with private landowners and USDA million pintails) and 13.6 million ducks in the fall conservation programs. Habitat acreage objectives flight by the year 2000.” USFWS Regional Directors developed by the states were then still in the process were requested by the PPJV Steering Committee to of being refined. After a review of nesting success continue to develop and implement a computerized data and with use of the Mallard Model, the PPJV modeling technique (Mallard Model) for planning Waterfowl Modeling Committee concluded that a beginning in 1990. State and project plans would 50% nesting success rate (originally recommended use the Mallard Model as a tool to develop and eval- by NAWMP) was unrealistic across the PPJV land- uate habitat protection and enhancement strategies. scape. The Committee subsequently recommended In 1989, at the request of the PPJV Steering Com- adopting a goal of a 0.6 recruitment rate overall for mittee, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team the PPJV and a 0.49 recruitment rate (population (HAPET) offices were established in Bismarck, ND maintenance level) for all managed areas. and Fergus Falls, MN to assist in the coordination Framers of the 1995 PPJV plan also recognized the and guidance of waterfowl management activities in need to increase knowledge about other bird species the PPJV. Also in 1989, the North American Wet- in the prairies. Several species of grassland birds lands Conservation Act (NAWCA) was authorized. endemic to the PPR were showing steep population Designed to provide matching funds to partners who declines. Information on waterbirds and shorebirds were carrying out wetland conservation projects in was lacking. The PPJV Management Board approved the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, NAWCA provided a a second objective of stabilizing or increasing popu- sorely needed source of funding to PPJV activities. lations of declining wetland/grassland-associated non-waterfowl migratory birds. Because of the lack In 1990, The PPJV Steering Committee changed its of basic information, no habitat or population objec- name to the PPJV Management Board, to provide tives were set. more uniformity within the NAWMP. The “Partner- ships in Progress” PPJV Accomplishment Report (1987-1993), documented major progress by the In 1995 the PPJV Management PPJV. State and project planning efforts were well underway or finished; flagship projects had been Board approved a second established in each state; accomplishments in the objective of stabilizing protection, restoration, and enhancement of habitat or increasing populations were being measured; and numerous evaluation of declining wetland/ activities (from meeting waterfowl production goals, grassland-associated to intensive habitat management techniques, to non-waterfowl migratory birds. surveys on shorebirds) were being completed. The PPJV recognized the importance of the Conservation Reserve Program, and issued a resolution calling for Several organizational changes were made in 1995. all Joint Ventures and the NAWMP U.S. Implemen- A Technical Committee was created that brought tation Board to secure support for the CRP. together expertise in waterfowl and non-waterfowl The NAWMP was updated in 1994 to reflect accom- migratory bird research and management. The plishments and changing times on a continent-wide Funding Committee was disbanded. The PPJV basis. The emphasis was on achieving waterfowl Management Board met with the Prairie Habitat objectives and broadening the NAWMP to include Joint Venture Management Board to discuss com- the maintenance and enhancement of associated mon conservation issues and plan a joint technical ecological values. Recognizing the need to review exchange. Priority actions focused on planning guidance from 1994 forward, the PPJV Manage- and evaluation, legislation and regulation, fund ment Board appointed a PPJV Implementation Plan raising, enhancing private lands management,

1.20 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org communications/education, organization, and sup- scientific foundation, and in developing and main- porting research and literature reviews regarding taining partnerships. In a landscape of 118 million predator management. acres, the PPJV protected, restored, or enhanced nearly 6 million acres of habitat during the first 15 The period of 1995-2000 saw explosive growth in the conservation and joint venture worlds. The size years of the partnership (1987-2002; PPJV 2003). and scope of NAWCA grants increased. National Funding used to reach these accomplishments plans for landbirds, waterbirds, and shorebirds were was derived through a combination of Migratory being developed. New tools became available for use Bird Conservation Funds (MBCF), Land and Water in landscape planning and design. The NAWMP was Conservation Funds (LWCF), North American Wet- updated in 1998, and in 1999, the PPJV Manage- lands Conservation Act (NAWCA), partner funding, ment Board asked the Coordinator and a working and private donations. The PPJV has also benefited group of the Board to review the 1995 PPJV Imple- immensely from a number of U.S. Department of mentation Plan to see if revisions were needed. The Agriculture conservation programs, most notably group concluded that the 1995 Plan was ahead of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetland the curve (particularly in the non-waterfowl arena). Reserve Program (WRP), and the successor programs The Management Board accepted the recommenda- under the Agriculture Conservation Easement Pro- tion to continue on course. gram (ACEP).

In 2005, the NAWMP update was signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Partners In Flight’s Thirty years of work in Landbird Plan, the North American Waterbird Con- servation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation the PPJV has produced Plan were complete. Additionally, NAWCA required spectacular results… technical answers on waterfowl and wetland-associated migratory birds; the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act was in place; the North American However, the prairie pothole states continue to lose Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) created a bird grasslands and wetlands at alarming rates, fueling conservation forum; Joint Ventures built new budget serious declines in a wide range of bird species. In requests to deliver conservation treatments for “all response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with birds”; and Bird Conservation Coalitions were devel- support of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commis- oped to seek funding. These activities stimulated a sion increased the allocation of MBCF funds to be new wave of international cooperation. The PPJV’s spent annually in the PPJV from 50% to 70%. This increasing role in international conservation is pre- enhanced funding was for a time period of five years sented in Appendix B – International Collaboration. (2012-2017) in response to accelerating conversion In the PPJV, HAPET offices and partners used the rates of prairie and wetlands and was directed latest GIS technologies to create models to target towards protecting “high quality waterfowl habi- conservation actions on the landscape for water- tat at risk of conversion to agriculture.” Although fowl. Data were collected and similar models were these additional funds helped address a backlog of being developed for shorebirds, grassland birds, and landowners interested in conservation programs in eventually, waterbirds. Evaluation and monitoring many areas, an enormous amount of work remains programs were implemented to refine models and to protect, restore and enhance the resiliency of the guide management activities. The PPJV was looking PPR ecosystem in the U.S. A waiting list for private beyond its boundaries, cooperating with the PHJV landowners willing to sell conservation easements in and other joint ventures in the U.S., and beginning the PPJV exists today. to form linkages and connections with wintering Building on lessons learned over the past 30 years, sites in the Western Hemisphere that host birds that and using the 2005 PPJV Implementation Plan as breed in the PPJV. the foundation, the PPJV developed this 2017 PPJV Thirty years of work in the PPJV has produced Implementation Plan that strives to look ahead and spectacular results on the landscape, in building a anticipate future challenges.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.21 CURRENT AND EMERGING ISSUES IN THE PPJV: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

he PPJV recognizes that the land and people of Changes in Crops and Technology - Changes in crop T the U.S. PPR are inextricably intertwined. The types and field sizes in the U.S. PPR have decreased hope and intent of the PPJV is that citizens, local, the quantity and quality of farmland wildlife habitat. state, and federal agencies, and non-governmental Row crops (i.e., corn and soybeans) that provide no organizations will work together toward sustainable habitat for upland nesting birds are replacing cereal land use, abundant wildlife populations, and vibrant crops (i.e., wheat and barley) that provide at least rural communities. Important issues that are creat- some—albeit marginal—nesting cover. The most evi- ing new conservation challenges and opportunities dent change in crop types is the western expansion for the people and wildlife of the Prairie Pothole of soybeans into North and South Dakota, states Region are reviewed below. that were considered too dry to grow soybeans just 60 years ago (Higgins et al. 2002). Shifts in crop acres may also have impacts on wetland watershed hydrology and subsequent wetland hydroperiods (McCauley et al. 2015). The use of genetically modified row crops is now predominant throughout the U.S. PPR (Krapu et al. 2004), and a current emphasis in crop research is to develop more drought-tolerant strains of corn and soybeans. New, herbicide-resis- tant crops, coupled with the low cost of herbicides, have been a major force behind the conversion of grassland to cropland.

Changes in Farm Equipment - Loss of native rangeland and the decreasing number of farm families Kurt Forman have coincided with changes in farm equipment that now enable fewer workers to more efficiently till, plant and harvest crops. Landowners today can Agriculture and U.S. Farm Policy manage many more corn and wheat acres in the Contemporary landscapes of the PPJV are shaped same amount of time compared to past years. This by agriculture making this JV one of the most equipment is also highly mobile, allowing producers anthropogenically influenced landscapes in the to manage fields in different townships or counties. world. The nature of that agriculture is determined Changes in equipment have also led to “cleaner” by individual producers who make land use deci- farming practices where operators remove grass sions based on tradition, expertise, lifestyle choice, margins along fields and drain small wetlands that and economic profitability. There is a dynamic inter- once served as important wildlife habitat, but are play among these factors. Individuals are generally now perceived as “problem areas” that impede the reluctant to adopt new practices that differ radi- movements of large machinery. Moreover, modern cally from their past experience. A cattle rancher, farming equipment and practices leaves less waste for example, is unlikely to become a wheat farmer grain after harvest. Coupled with fewer unplanted unless he is already a “mixed operator,” because areas that produce annual seeds, intensely cropped he lacks the expertise and equipment to do so. The areas often have less forage available on the land- same can be said for a wheat farmer becoming a scape as a whole. Recent advances in “precision rancher. However, when land changes hands, the farming technology,” such as GPS guided imple- new owners may have the tradition and expertise to ments and GIS calibrated planting and fertilizing switch land use quickly. Typically, several factors rates, will continue to enhance the efficiency of weigh into that decision. tillage agriculture and exert additional pressure

1.22 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org on wildlife habitats. Natural resource conservation U.S. Farm Bill subsidy payments were an important planners will be challenged to develop programs factor in private landowners’ decisions to convert that address the growing scale of farming yet make grasslands to cropland. As of the 2014 U.S. Farm fiscal sense to landowners. Bill, direct subsidy payments were eliminated and Changes in Rangeland and Livestock - Throughout replaced with other Title I commodity support pro- U.S. PPR states, conversion of grassland to cropland grams, such as Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price has resulted in fewer cattle across the landscape. Loss Coverage. Crop insurance is also subsidized Data indicate that 600,000 acres of grassland were and all support programs are linked to conservation lost in the South Dakota PPR from 1997-2009 (Dahl compliance provisions. 2014). North Dakota lost an additional 75,000 acres of grassland and Montana nearly 200,000 acres during the same period. Continued losses since OPPORTUNITIES 2009, much of it CRP, have resulted in a net loss of »»Expand PPJV Management Board to grasslands in every PPJV state. include private agricultural producer. Recent increases in animal size exacerbate poor »»Explore opportunities with new agri- range conditions because more forage must be business conservation partners. produced on fewer acres to feed cattle that are 30% »»Collaborate with USDA partners on heavier now than 60 years ago (Higgins et al. 2002). U.S. Farm Bill conservation policy. These factors present an opportunity for U.S. PPR »»Increase the application of perennial planners to promote grazing as a preferred land crops and cover crops for nesting birds. use while working with landowners to minimize adverse impacts of overgrazing. The recent growth of consumer interest in rangeland grassfed beef has caused scores of ranching operations throughout Grassland Loss the PPR to tailor their operations to capitalize on this Grassland loss within the PPJV continues and is emerging market. Further, innovative ranching prac- accelerating. Recent high commodity prices and bio- tices such as grassbanking allow property owners to fuel mandates for corn and soybeans drove a recent lease land to ranchers at a discount in exchange for surge in grassland loss across the PPJV (Lark et al. ranchers carrying out conservation-related projects 2015). Grassland loss rates across the majority of on their pastures. The Nature Conservancy’s 60,000 the PPJV have been documented as high as 5.4% acre Matador Ranch in north central Montana uses annually, a conversion rate not seen since the early grassbanking to leverage conservation practices on part of the 20th century (Wright and Wimberly surrounding ranches, resulting in improved habi- 2013). Rates of conversion are highest in the east- tat across more than 250,000 acres. Continuation ern North and South Dakota portions of the PPJV, of these trends and practices could present an overlapping with areas of high duck pair density. expanded opportunity for landowners and conserva- Conversion of grass to soybean and corn production tionists to forge partnerships that benefit both. from 2006-2011 is estimated to be 671,000 acres Profitability - Profitability is obviously an import- across North and South Dakota alone (Wright and ant factor affecting land use. Although commodity Wimberly 2013). Much of this grassland loss can be prices and input costs are considerations in the attributed to the loss of USDA CRP acres. Farm Bill profitability equation, they have historically been programs like CRP have proven extremely valuable overshadowed by the subsidy programs of the U.S to supplementing duck production in the U.S. PPR Farm Bill. Were it not for these subsidies and the for over 30 years. Reynolds et al. (2001) estimated financial safety net they provide, it is likely that that the CRP contributed 2.1 million ducks to the land-use decisions made during the last two decades annual fall flight between 1992 and 1997. Addi- would have been very different, since evidence sug- tional analysis by the USFWS estimated that 25.7 gests that diversification leads to economic stabil- million ducks were produced on CRP acres within ity and viability (Gascoigne et al. 2013). The U.S. the PPJV from 1992 to 2003 (Reynolds et al. 2006). Government Accountability Office (2007) found that Unfortunately, CRP acres are rapidly disappearing

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.23 Figure 6. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres Wetland Loss/Wetland Consolidation for Prairie Pothole Joint Venture counties, 1986–2015. Acres include all CRP parcels for all Conservation Along with grassland loss, wetland drainage and Practice Types (USDA 2014, FSA unpublished data). consolidation has escalated across the U.S. PPR. According to Dahl (2011) wetland losses across the from the PPJV landscape. Acreage in the CRP reached PPJV administrative area can be attributed to “efforts its peak within the PPJV administrative area in 2007 to increase drainage on farm fields as a result of with 8.35 million acres and had declined to 4.19 mil- economic and climatic conditions”. Tile drainage is lion acres in 2015, a reduction of 50% (USDA FSA moving rapidly north and west into areas of the PPJV 2014; Figure 6). The percentage of total grasslands not historically impacted by this drainage technique. comprised by CRP varies by state, and ranges from Additionally, increased surface ditching activity has 11% in South Dakota to over 67% in Minnesota been noted over the last decade. The USDA NRCS has within the respective states of the PPJV (Doherty et been inundated by thousands of wetland determina- al. 2013). tion requests relating to drainage. Estimates of loss vary by region with Oslund et al. (2010) estimating that 4.3% of remaining wetland habitats disappeared OPPORTUNITIES between 1980 and 2007 from the Minnesota PPJV, »»Collaborate with USDA partners on the likely as a result of improved tile drainage. Johnston U.S. Farm Bill “Sodsaver” provision. (2013) estimated an annual NWI wetland loss of »»Engage private agricultural producers through 0.28% / year for the PPJV areas of North and South grassland-based marketing campaigns. Dakota. Over time, these losses will impact the carrying capacity of the PPJV area to support breeding »»Communicate grassland ecosystem service benefits on working agricultural lands. ducks and other wetland dependent birds, plants, and wildlife. Many areas within the PPJV experienc- »»Incorporate tillage conversion risk into ing intensification in wetland drainage also are grassland protection prioritization. undergoing significant wetland basin consolidation. Wetland consolidation occurs when smaller wetlands in areas with closed drainage patterns are drained

1.24 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Chuck Loesch into larger basins downhill. This artificial increase in Pesticides wetland inflow due to drainage can have impacts on Neonicotinoid insecticides are a relatively new class productivity for migratory birds and other wetland of insecticides now widely used across the entire dependent wildlife by altering the frequency of PPR. Neonicotinoids are neurotoxins commonly used drawdowns the basin experiences, reducing inverte- as a seed treatment and are extremely toxic to insects brate populations, and impeding nutrient cycling at low concentrations (Goulson 2013). By 2008, 80% (Anteau 2012). Consolidation drainage may also of all treated seeds were coated with neonicotinoids increase sedimentation and favor invasive aquatic (Jeschke and Nauen 2008) potentially having wide- species and permanency of fish, further degrading spread impacts to wetlands and wildlife across the the value of larger wetlands and shallow lakes for PPR. Recent concerns over the widespread use of waterfowl (Anteau 2012). Wetland consolidation also these pesticides involve their persistence and mobil- has dramatic impacts to water budgets within water- ity in the environment. Most neonicotinoids have sheds. Consolidation of water from many basins to long chemical half-lives and are water soluble. Main few basins increases frequency of basin overflow and et al. (2014) found neonicotinoids in PPR wetlands decreases evapotranspiration rates within water- located in cropped fields in prairie Canada with 91% sheds decreasing overall capacity (Wiltermuth 2014, of sampled wetlands containing neonicotinoid insec- McCauly et al. 2015, Dumanski et al. 2015). ticides following spring runoff. Non-target effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on a landscape scale are not known; however, recent research has docu- OPPORTUNITIES mented lethal and sub-lethal effects to quail (Toku- »»Collaborate with USDA partners on the moto et al. 2013), and red-legged partridge (Lopez- U.S. Farm Bill “Swampbuster” provision. Anita et al. 2013) including adult mortality, reduced egg size, and lowered chick survival. »»Communicate wetland ecosystem service benefits on working agricultural lands. »»Invest PPJV resources into research investigating environmental and OPPORTUNITIES socio-economic impact of continued »»Invest PPJV resources into research inves- wetland drainage and consolidation. tigating the levels of neonicotinoid contamination across the U.S. PPR and identify the ecological features that make PPR wetlands susceptible to neonicotinoid contamination. »»Work with appropriate partners to assess impacts to pollinators.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.25 Climate Change While long-term variations in atmospheric CO2 and climate have been a constant feature on earth, the Climate change is a natural phenomenon. In the last current rate of climate change threatens the contin- 10,000-13,000 years, the PPR was overlain by an ice ued existence of historic natural communities and sheet perhaps up to a mile thick. After the retreat of many species that comprise them. Subtle changes the ice, the area was dominated in progressive order like a slightly higher frequency of spring frosts or by tundra, coniferous taiga, deciduous forest, and finally grassland. Each vegetation community was summer drought can affect species by changing a product of climate and proximity to the retreating their survival or recruitment rates. Thus natural ice sheet. In historic times, a massive increase in plant communities and agricultural crops are under the burning of fossil fuels, mainly for heating and constant pressure to change. As environmental con- transportation, has liberated deeply buried carbon ditions change, the current suite of birds and other deposited over hundreds of millions of years. The oxi- wildlife of the PPR will have to adapt to changing dation of wood, coal, and petroleum products yields climatic and subsequent habitat conditions or they carbon dioxide (CO2), the major cause of historic cli- will eventually decline and potentially disappear mate change, to the atmosphere trapping heat that from the region. would otherwise been radiated into space. A suite of As the climate changes, some species become less models developed by the North American Regional adapted and gradually disappear while other spe- Climate Change Assessment Program (Mearns et al. cies are likely to move into the PPR and thrive. Often 2009) generally converge on a few predictions for the these species are introduced plants, insect pests, U.S. PPR – colder winter temperatures, particularly bacteria, or other pathogens on native species. in the west and north; more snow accumulation Conservation planning in the U.S. PPR may have to throughout the PPR, with the greatest increases in include contingency plans to conserve historic native the south and east; warmer summer temperatures, species, alter management practices, and control or increasing most in the south and west; and wetter manage a host of new habitats for migratory birds summers, particularly in the southeastern PPR. In and other plants and wildlife. summary, these models seem to suggest wetland conditions will be affected by wetter early springs One of the major challenges of addressing climate and hotter, wetter summers in the PPR (although change effects on fish and wildlife is identifying summer precipitation may be offset by increased and addressing uncertainty in our understanding evaporation and evapotranspiration). of future climate change and how that change will affect ecological systems. For example, Johnson et al. (2010) suggested that waterfowl conservation be shifted away from currently important areas in the western and central portions of the U.S. PPR eastward to locations that climate models suggest may become more conducive for providing consistent wetland habitat for breeding ducks in the future. However, Loesch et al. (2012) assessed the biological risk of refocusing waterfowl conservation efforts eastward and found that maintaining the current focus of habitat protection appears to be the most cost-effective approach to conservation coupled with the uncertainty of climate change effects on waterfowl habitat distribution. To succeed in sustaining priority bird populations, PPJV plans and actions must realistically reflect the limitations and uncertainties in the understanding of climate change. Further exacerbating uncertainty, differences in Kevin Barnes regional climate model performance, variability in ecological responses to changing conditions, and

1.26 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org …the PPJV will continue to intensively monitor habitat and populations to detect change in habitat and concurrent responses. Coupled with conservation actions that increase resource security and resiliency, increased monitoring efforts will enable the PPJV to inform and adapt management and conservation efforts in an uncertain future.

changes in societal factors, such as economics, analysis could address (Conley and van der Kamp land-use, and environmental awareness, confound 2001, Niemuth et al. 2010, Loesch et al. 2012, our ability to accurately predict future conditions. Niemuth et al. 2014). Consistent with an adaptive management approach and the considerable uncer- Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the climate tainty associated with climate change impacts, the in much of the PPR is indeed changing. However, PPJV will continue to intensively monitor habitat instead of getting drier as some simulations have and populations to detect change in habitat and suggested, much of the PPR is getting warmer and concurrent responses. Coupled with conservation wetter. Forty years of data collected by the USFWS actions that increase resource security and resil- Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Sur- iency, increased monitoring efforts will enable the vey (WBPHS) indicate the numbers of May ponds PPJV to inform and adapt management and conser- significantly increased in 7 of 20 waterfowl survey vation efforts in an uncertain future. strata in the PPR from 1974-2013 and declined in none; July pond numbers (1974-2003) declined in one stratum but increased in seven; and an index to hydroperiod (1974-2013) showed increasing trends OPPORTUNITIES in three strata and decreasing trends in no strata »»Work closely with the U.S. Geologi- (Niemuth et al. 2014). cal Survey Climate Centers to better understand current and proposed climate modeling for the U.S. PPR. Warmer and wetter »»Strengthen existing long-term moni- conditions are resulting in toring programs for priority species and associated habitats (e.g. Four-Square- intensification of land use… Mile Breeding Waterfowl Survey). »»Communicate the importance of con- The direct effects of climate change on breeding servation actions to mitigate the direct and indirect effects of climate change bird populations and associated habitats may be and strengthen landscape resiliency. overshadowed by indirect effects the U.S. PPR is already experiencing. Warmer and wetter conditions »»Assess the role Landscape Conservation are resulting in intensification of land use, includ- Cooperatives (LCCs), namely the Plains ing plowing of grasslands, draining of wetlands, and & Prairie Pothole LCC, can provided to the PPJV with integration of climate increased planting of corn and soybeans (Laingen models into conservation planning. 2012, Wright and Wimberly 2013, Niemuth et al. 2014). Furthermore, these habitat losses negatively »»Assess and strengthen the current PPJV impact many other ecosystem services (Fargione et adaptive capacity to climate change. al. 2009) and may result in a long-term functional loss of resilience to weather extremes.

Given the variable hydrology and inconsistent wetland monitoring efforts, considerable uncertainty exists regarding trends of wetlands and land use in the U.S. PPR, which additional monitoring and

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.27 Energy Development of oil producing wells in North Dakota from 3,363 in June 2006 to 12,470 in June 2015 (ND Dept. of Energy development had little overlap with high Mineral Resources, personal comm.). It has been densities of breeding ducks in the United States forecasted that 40,000 - 70,000 wells will be drilled prior to 2006. Since then, development of large in the Bakken Region of North Dakota in the next 20 wind energy installations in the Eastern Dakotas years (ND Dept. Mineral Resources, personal and intense oil and gas development in the Bakken comm.). Drilling in the Bakken Region is exclusively Region has occurred. completed via horizontal fracking which requires Prairie Pothole Joint Venture states have a combined massive amounts of fluids (approximately 3 million 3,167 GW of wind energy potential (Kiesecker et al. gallons of water plus 2 million pounds of frac sand/ 2011). Production of energy from wind requires a well) to be injected into well sites and well pads that large terrestrial footprint per unit of energy produced. are often several acres in size. Although horizontal Thus, substantial overlap between wind energy fracking technology provides the potential to avoid development and prairie/wetland communities is certain areas by drilling under them from up to 2 likely to occur, despite relatively small amounts of miles away, wetlands have received little to no avoid- energy generated. Collisions of birds with wind tow- ance. Dyke et al. (2010) estimated that by 2020, an ers and their associated powerlines are of concern, additional 10,330 (8 times the number prior to 2000) in addition to effects such as avoidance behavior, seasonal, semipermanent, and permanent wetlands given the massive size of wind energy structures. in the PPR of ND will have a well pad within 100m. Moreover, the massive amounts of materials and liquids used in the drilling process translate into Placement of wind farms thousands of trips by large semi-trucks to each well often coincides with pristine site during drilling. Given that intense oil and gas development has never overlapped with high densi- grasslands due to their ties of breeding ducks, as it does in northwestern topographical characteristics… North Dakota, effects relating to breeding ducks and their reproductive output are largely unknown. Pos- sible direct and indirect impacts from the drilling Gue et al. (2013) found survival rates of hen mal- process consist of the following: traffic and noise, lards and blue-winged teal did not differ in relation natural gas flaring activities, constant activity at to proximity to wind farms. Similarly, Niemuth et well sites, impairment of wetlands by contaminants al. (2013) determined no differences in presence of or well pad placement, and direct conversion of hab- several species of wetland birds; however, in those itat from well pad construction. same areas, Loesch et al. (2013) found that fewer breeding duck pairs (-21%) settled within wind farms as compared to similar surrounding habitats OPPORTUNITIES without wind turbines. Placement of wind farms »»Work with appropriate industries often coincides with pristine grasslands due to for research support and possibly their topographical characteristics and lower prices habitat mitigation opportunities. involved with obtaining access to surface rights. Work with applicable industries to Grassland birds are often “area sensitive” species, »» provide avoidance and minimization showing avoidance of tall structures such as wind tools to help off-set potential impacts. towers. One of very few long-term before–after-control-impact (BACI) design studies showed that 7 of »»Continue to support research investigating the effects of oil and gas development, 9 grassland species were displaced by wind towers, wind energy development, or biofuel often up to 300m (Shaffer and Buhl 2015). expansion on priority species. Oil and gas development has been intensifying in the Bakken Region of northwestern North Dakota and northeastern Montana since 2006. Drilling has increased at an exceptional pace, bringing the number

1.28 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Chuck Loesch

Grassland Bird Conservation declines. Consequently, the PPJV will focus time, attention, and funding on reducing uncertainty and North American grassland bird populations have developing innovative conservation treatments. been declining faster than any other avian guild over the last 40 years (Knopf 1994, Sauer et al. 2014). Large-scale conversion of grassland habitat to landscapes dedicated to producing food and energy are OPPORTUNITIES possibly the major contributing factor for grassland »»Establish a grassland bird subcommittee bird population declines. The Northern Great Plains of the Technical Committee to develop – including the U.S. PPR – contains the highest and advance a conservation strategy focused on specific priority species. diversity of grassland bird species on the continent (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999), including several popu- »»Collaborate with partners in Canada lations of conservation concern. Four mixed-grass on conservation actions targeted for priority grassland nesting bird species. specialist species are of primary conservation concern due to their ongoing population declines (Sauer »»Explore opportunities with new et al. 2014): Sprague’s Pipit, Baird’s Sparrow, conservation partners in the agri- business and energy sectors. McCown’s Longspur, and Chestnut-collared Long- spur. Although these four species’ population »»Invest PPJV resources in research to declines are some of the most dramatic, several identify population limiting factors for priority grassland nesting bird species. other species across the PPJV continue to decline (see Landbird Section). The PPJV will strive to be »»Seek new funding sources for priority proactive instead of reactive in the face of declining grassland bird conservation. grassland bird populations. Generally, little is known about the biological factors driving population

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.29 In a PPR environment functioning as naturally designed, wetlands hold back runoff and recharge groundwater supplies, wetlands and grasslands slow down and remove impurities in runoff, and grasslands sequester immense amounts of carbon in their root systems despite frequent fires. Human changes to the ecosystem have created an integrated drainage network of tiles and ditches in many areas with streams and lakes as the outlets, virtually eliminated fire from the ecosystem as a revitalizing disturbance factor, and tilled up soil organic carbon releasing it to the atmosphere to exacerbate climate change.

The progressive degradation of the environment inevitably has negative economic consequences. Often these costs are deferred or hidden from plain view – reduced soil fertility, degraded water quality, increased water levels in remaining wetlands, and increased flood frequency and severity. Each has societal costs; for example, the Des Moines and Rac- coon Rivers in Iowa are the leading contributors of nitrates to the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, affecting that ecosystem and people that rely on it for their livelihood. Moreover, cities that rely on these streams spend millions annually to reduce nitrates to safe consumption levels. Fortunately,

Chuck Loesch most conservation actions that restore wildlife habitat have collateral environmental quality benefits that reduce these costs. Ecosystem Services of Wetlands and Grasslands Abundant and diverse bird communities in the U.S. OPPORTUNITIES PPR provide society with an array of benefits that »»Learn from partners’ experiences (e.g., Ducks include provisioning (food from harvested species), Unlimited Canada efforts on water quality) cultural (bird-watching), regulating (pest control), in efforts to highlight benefits from wetland and supporting (nutrient cycling) ecosystem services. and grassland conservation/restoration. Ecosystem services are the benefits to people from »»Increase public awareness of ecological nature. The prairie pothole wetlands and surround- services provided by U.S. PPR wetlands ing grassland habitats required by bird communities and grasslands in order to develop greater also provide a variety of ecological goods and services appreciation for conservation and to to the people living in the U.S. PPR and well beyond. develop funding opportunities. For example, North Dakota and South Dakota are the »»Increase contact with appropriate number 1 and 2 states in the nation for production of entities well outside the U.S. PPR to honey (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2016). promote the linkage between their The contribution of natural ecosystems to these ben- states and issues and the U.S. PPR. efits is often unquantified and unmeasured, but the »»Develop spatially explicit ecosystem value of such benefits is gradually becoming more services models for wetland and grass- apparent as human populations grow and demand land resources at the landscape and site for natural resources increases. scales in the PPJV administrative area.

1.30 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Societal Attitudes provides over $100 million for conservation each about Conservation year. Recently, the smaller North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Fund has provided roughly $5 million Conservation social sciences have focused consid- annually for “outdoor education and recreation-re- erable attention to understanding the relationship lated” projects. In Iowa, a portion of future sales tax between humans and nature and to improving increases has been ear-marked for conservation and conservation outcomes. Human dimensions of con- only awaits passage of a bill to increase the state’s servation is a reference to the social attitudes, pro- sales tax. Hunting and outdoor recreation are front cesses, and behaviors related to how people main- page news, and the need to protect and restore the tain, protect, enhance, and use natural resources. wetland and grassland resources upon which these In light of the current habitat losses in the U.S. endeavors depend are gaining public recognition. PPR, Doherty et al. (2013) emphasized the need to adapt the PPJV conservation delivery strategies to For this Implementation Plan to be successful PPJV maintain high landowner interest and acceptance of partners must build on the good programs and conservation programs. Building and maintaining favorable attitudes where they exist, and help shape relationships with private landowners will be critical positive attitudes towards conservation wherever to conservation delivery, because the vast majority such programs are not viewed in a positive light. of lands within the PPJV area are privately owned. This will require the PPJV to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to educate the public and Residents of the U.S. PPR have mixed views toward elected officials on the values of natural assets – not conservation, as do elected officials and organiza- only to birds, but, to the quality of life for people as tions. In Minnesota and Iowa, several state funding well. The PPJV must also advertise its successes sources have been developed to finance and promote and market its programs to the public to further habitat conservation and restoration. Conservation gain their support and involvement. Such commu- land securement and public access are generally nications will be given high priority by the PPJV, encouraged. There are hundreds of lake associations and are further described in Appendix C – Commu- in Minnesota, and in April 2005 there was a “rally nications Plan. for ducks and clean water” to highlight the need to restore quality waterfowl hunting through habitat restorations and clean aquatic environments. Like- wise, water quality has become a front-page issue OPPORTUNITIES in Iowa, and their governor has made it one of his »»Expand knowledge and use administration’s priorities. of the social sciences. In the Dakotas and Montana, conservation is »»Explore opportunities to provide input viewed differently. For example, voters resound- (i.e., express our needs) in human ingly defeated the 2014 North Dakota Clean Water, dimensions research funded by the Wildlife and Parks Amendment (i.e., Measure 5), an Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. initiative that would have redirected some of the »»Develop spatial models that link landowner state’s oil tax revenues to conservation efforts. Also, decisions with biological outcomes. in North Dakota there are prohibitions on perpetual »»Increase private landowner interest and conservation easements and restrictions on land acceptance in conservation programs. purchases for conservation. South Dakota and Mon- »»Support efforts to better understand tana have experienced recent legislative attempts to hunter and supporter attitudes (e.g., impose similar limitations. the NAWMP choice experiment) In every PPJV state most conservation funding comes from state and federal wildlife agencies, with necessarily limited contributions from non-profit conservation organizations. Conservation potential in Minnesota has been enhanced by passage of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Act which

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.31 INTEGRATED BIRD CONSERVATION

he PPJV is committed to addressing the con- Planning by Species Groups servation needs of all priority avian species T Our knowledge of the population dynamics and that use the U.S. PPR. This is a daunting challenge, ecology of avian species in the PPJV ranges from because each species occupies a unique ecological fairly complete for several species of waterfowl niche and may be subject to a unique set of limiting (particularly the mallard), to rudimentary for many factors. Therefore, we use a strategic, science-based waterbirds, shorebirds, and landbirds. The ultimate approach to conservation optimizing diverse goal of most bird conservation efforts is to enhance partners, strategies, and tactics. Sections II-V of or maintain populations at desired levels. Given this this plan address the conservation needs of four demographic objective, we focus on mortality (death species groups: waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, rates) and/or natality (birth rates), and largely ignore and landbirds. For waterfowl, planning relies on immigration and emigration rates due to the nature the North American Waterfowl Management Plan of these migratory bird populations. Mortality and (NAWMP 2012; Section II), and its various deriva- natality are often further dissected into demographic tives specific to the Prairie Pothole Region. Shore- subcomponents termed “vital rates” (e.g., female bird conservation plans are derived from the U.S. survival during nesting, nest survival, pre-fledging Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001; survival, etc.). Understanding variation in vital rates, Section III). Waterbirds are addressed as a compo- identifying which vital rates are most responsible for nent of the North American Waterbird Conservation population change, and quantifying how vital rates Plan, and the associated step-down plan for the vary across landscapes and time, are all critical to PPR, the Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird informing conservation planning and management. Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002; Section IV). Lastly, the North American Landbird Conservation Plan was the foundation for conservation planning A great deal is known about for this diverse group of species (Rosenburg et al. 2016; Section V). The four species group sections vital rates for waterfowl will be updated as often as necessary to reflect because band recoveries revisions to national plans, new knowledge of popu- from ducks shot by hunters lation status and trends, and new scientific findings allow us to estimate annual that bear on conservation delivery. Although Section I (Plan Foundation) of this Implementation Plan will survival and harvest rates. be less dynamic than the other sections, it too will be updated as often as necessary to keep pace with A great deal is known about vital rates for water- new challenges, important scientific discoveries, fowl because band recoveries from ducks shot by and fresh opportunities. hunters allow us to estimate annual survival and harvest rates. This includes seasonal patterns of mortality for some species. Moreover, duck research has been better funded and ducks are large enough to tolerate the necessary mass of tracking devices. Tracking individuals provides unbiased estimates of recruitment rates and hen success. Most waterfowl even tolerate large, visual markers that use sophisticated techniques to determine vital statistics like “true” recruitment rates and philopatry. Finally,

Kevin Barnes duck and goose nests are relatively easy to locate and can be monitored for survival.

1.32 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org In contrast, for many smaller birds that are not because of declining status in the U.S. PPR, or (2) a hunted, only gross population trends based on sur- high rate of occurrence in the U.S. PPR, constitut- veys that index populations are understood. While ing the core of the species breeding range, and (3) mark-recapture studies of mortality and natality represent a habitat utilized by several other species are starting to bear fruit, the precision of these of interest. The use of priority species helps make estimators is often poor and the monitoring period the scope and scale of bird conservation tractable by brief, thus making it difficult to ascertain long-term allowing one to concentrate programs, monitoring temporal changes or variation. efforts, and research on a sub-set of birds that are The upshot is that integrated planning for migratory both representative and/or most important to the birds must recognize the strengths and deficiencies PPJV. Threats and Limiting Factors are identified in understanding demography and vital rates of and associated with priority species. Often, threats various species, and planning will occur based on relate more to the need to retain existing import- different levels of knowledge and will be improved ant habitats, whereas limiting factors constrain over time as more is learned. population growth rates by impacting one or more vital rates. The threats and limiting factors are In this plan, waterfowl conservation will be as then addressed with Actions or Treatments, often sophisticated as warranted by the state of knowl- specific to priority species. Lastly, conservation pro- edge. Likewise, planning for other bird groups will grams are targeted to specific locations within the be at a level appropriate to scientific understanding. PPJV using Models that result in Spatial Prioriti- It is important that plans not “reach” beyond the zation. When urgency, opportunity, and resource state of knowledge or reasonable conjecture, but limitations are important considerations, some spe- rather build a solid science foundation on what we cies group plans also set programmatic and tempo- know or assume to be true. ral priorities, in addition to spatial priorities. To the extent possible, each species group plan addresses the following topics. A Background and Spatial Models Context section describes the importance of the Despite its superficial appearance, the U.S. PPR U.S. PPR to each bird group and sets the stage for is remarkably diverse. This diversity causes some understanding the challenges ahead. Population areas to be differentially attractive—and import- and Habitat Trends reviews the knowledge of ant—to certain species. Locations with unusually the population dynamics for important species. A rich wetland communities or large expanses of native Biological Foundation section summarizes the grasslands are two important examples. However, it basic ecological relationships and associated con- may also be critical to pinpoint rare habitats used servation challenges that form the underpinnings by a species in decline. The PPJV has a history of for the goals, objectives, and strategies of each plan. using spatially-explicit GIS models to target conser- Because there is incomplete knowledge of natural vation programs. This Implementation Plan builds systems and the avian species that use them, the on that tradition and expertise. Such models offer Biological Foundation depends on an adaptive man- conservation planners unparalleled abilities to inte- agement loop of Biological Assumptions (which grate diverse data to inform management decisions. are explicitly stated), Key Uncertainties (those questions that are most important to the success of the program), and Research and Monitoring, which will be used to test the validity of our key Despite its superficial uncertainties. Research and monitoring programs appearance, the U.S. PPR will validate/invalidate biological assumptions, and is remarkably diverse. adjust those accordingly.

After the biological foundation, Population and Habitat Goals may be identified and may also For all of their merits, GIS models should be inter- include a discussion of actions and treatments preted and applied with some caution and used by Priority Species. Priority Species are those along with other tools and criteria. At first glance, that have: (1) a high level of conservation priority the map-like appearance of GIS products lends

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.33 the impression that the information they convey is Integrating Species Plans with flawless. However, GIS maps are typically derived Strategic Habitat Conservation from remote sensing data, or as products or sums Spatial models developed for a suite of priority spe- of estimators, all of which have associated errors cies will lead to Programmatic Elements (protec- and variances that usually are not depicted on GIS tion, restoration, or enhancement) that will compose maps. The problem is amplified when multiple GIS PPJV conservation delivery. In many cases, a mix layers are “stacked” one upon another, producing of all three may be warranted. Each PPJV state has a single, new GIS product that has “accumulated” developed a Tactical Plan that sets forth programs variance terms from each layer. GIS maps also tend that best address conservation needs in particular to “average out” the considerable temporal variation landscapes. State Tactical Plans are included as associated with prairie ecosystems. Thus, for exam- supplements to this Implementation Plan. ple, a location depicted as important for a particular species may have the resources needed by this After spatial priorities have been identified and a species only a couple of years out of several, due to mix of programmatic elements decided upon, over- natural environmental variation. Lastly, GIS maps lap with spatial and programmatic priorities often display bird density metrics (i.e., number of among species will be sought. This is the first individuals per unit area) that are implied indicators integrative step in the process of bringing together of habitat quality. Ecologists, however, have recog- Tactical Plans from each of the bird groups, and nized that density may be a misleading indicator provides the opportunity to leverage resources of habitat quality (Van Horne 1983), so such maps and implement projects in a collaborative way. It must be used with an awareness of that concern. also sets the stage for cooperation in monitoring landscape change and demographic responses These limitations are offered as cautionary notes. to actions. The results of monitoring feed back into Spatial models have great utility. However, users setting new population and habitat goals in an adap- of these products must avoid thinking of them as tive management context. maps that depict “the truth,” but rather as visual planning tools that approximate reality. Whenever These ideas are not new; they are key components possible, PPJV spatial models will attempt to quan- of any adaptive management or landscape-scale tify error terms and temporal variation while con- conservation strategy. Distilled, they are the five veying the proper interpretation of density metrics. elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC; Moreover, validation of spatial models has been, and Figure 7): biological planning, conservation design, will continue to be, an important PPJV science pri- conservation delivery, outcome-based monitoring, ority. Ultimately, spatial models offer the best hope and assumption-based research. SHC is an explicit, of prioritizing and implementing bird conservation adaptive approach to conservation that originated in in a 184,000 square mile landscape. North American waterfowl management.

Casey Stemler

1.34 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Figure 7. Strategic Habitat Conservation elements limited to periodic snapshots in time (e.g., National Landcover Data is typically published every five Monitoring Landscape Change and years, and HAPET landcover products have been Evaluating Demographic Responses developed at similar time intervals) due to the cost and workload required to attain, process, and The process of monitoring landscape change and ground truth remotely sensed imagery. Thus snap- evaluating population or demographic response shots of status and trends of landcover change, and may best be implemented as an iterative loop in and of itself. For example, with waterfowl, planners have their subsequent biological outcomes, are periodic decided on a baseline landscape condition that will and inherently retrospective. The periodic update of result in the desired duck recruitment potential. landcover data (every 5 years) will be used to re-eval- However, land use and vegetative cover are changing uate the mix of programs and strategies needed for constantly throughout the U.S. PPR. As conserva- the future. The need exists to develop new methods tion programs (“gains”) are delivered over the course and tools that will facilitate more frequent and accu- of years, we also know that loss and degradation rate landcover updates. Demographic and spatial of habitat (“losses”) will occur because of actions models will be used to relate landscape changes to beyond our control. Comprehensive landcover data is anticipated demographic responses.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.35 Strategic Habitat Conservation is an explicit, adaptive approach to conservation that originated in North American waterfowl management.

Chuck Loesch

1.36 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Important Considerations for “Multi-species spatial overlap does not necessar- Integrated Bird Conservation ily equate to greater conservation benefits” – This might occur for two reasons. First, some rare and The integration process will ultimately allow us declining species are in that situation precisely to designate priority areas on the PPJV landscape because they use rare habitats, including some where we can pool resources for the greatest ben- that are not used by many other species. The piping efit to multiple species. This has intuitive appeal plover’s preference for alkaline mudflats and barren for several reasons, not the least of which is more sandbars is one example. Thus, in some cases, the efficient use of personnel and financial resources. most effective conservation might be targeted to However, there are several important considerations areas with little or no overlap with other species. as we implement this approach. A second reason relates to the gradients of habitat “Separate planning, integrated action” – This quality that can be identified for most species. Deliv- strategy allows the best available science to drive ering conservation projects in an area of overlap the most sophisticated planning possible. It is par- that is simply “adequate” for several different spe- ticularly relevant when the disparate knowledge of cies may result in fewer net conservation benefits the various species groups is considered. For exam- than if separate projects were delivered in excep- ple, there is extensive understanding of waterfowl tional areas for each species, none of which were (duck) population biology, distributions, vital rates, overlapping. To guard against this circumstance, habitat selection, and ecology, which enables the “areas of overlap” should involve a high threshold of development of very sophisticated models. Knowl- habitat quality for all species involved. For example, edge of other species groups is comparatively mea- in 2013 Montana PPJV partners conducted a con- ger, therefore, models will be less sophisticated. If servation planning analysis in which 22 focal bird waterfowl planning was implemented under a com- species were assessed to identify priority habitats mon framework with other non-waterfowl species, it for conservation actions. Only optimal, high quality would require that planning is done with whatever habitats were used in the analysis to guard against common body of knowledge exists for all species this circumstance. Results allow partners to identify involved. This would result in waterfowl plans that groups of species that mutually benefit from a spe- were substandard compared to that which could be cific conservation action (e.g., perpetual protection), achieved by utilizing all of the available informa- as well as those species that are “loners” and prefer tion. A preferred approach is to use the knowledge rare habitats (e.g., piping plover, golden eagle). accumulated over decades of waterfowl research “Managing for one species will impact the welfare and planning to accelerate the progress made by the of another” – Organisms exploit their environments other species groups, thereby allowing integrated in different ways. Given the disparate vegetative planning using an advanced state of understanding. preferences, successional stages, food habits, and breeding requirements of the avian species that The integration process will occupy the PPJV administrative area, it is a virtual certainty that any decision to restore or enhance ultimately allow us to designate habitat for a particular species will benefit one spe- priority areas on the PPJV cies to the detriment of another. The “all-bird” man- landscape where we can pool agement philosophy has yet to resolve this potential conflict. Logically, management for endangered or resources for the greatest declining species should trump that for more com- benefit to multiple species. mon species when there is a conflict. This situation notwithstanding, most decisions of this type may ultimately rest with the owner of the property on which management is being implemented. Partners will need to address this issue proactively in advance of project delivery.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.37 WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION?

ltimately, every active partner in the PPJV Development and Execution U should play some role in these activities. of State Tactical Plans However, some division of labor and expertise is As mentioned previously, this Implementation beneficial and obvious. The PPJV Coordinator and Plan provides a context and strategy for delivering Science Coordinator will lead and manage planning integrated bird conservation, but does not provide activities. The PPJV Technical Committee (PPJVTC) details such as the specific tactics to be employed has, starting with the development of this plan, laid and associated acreage objectives, costs, and partner the biological foundation and set forth higher-level responsibilities. For this, it is expected that State population and habitat goals. The PPJVTC, chaired Tactical Plans will be developed and executed by the Science Coordinator, needs to continue with using the integrated approach described above. planning by identifying priority species, clarifying spatial priorities, establishing baseline habitat con- State Tactical Plans have been developed by groups ditions, refining models that relate habitat features of partners, and the expectation is that such plans (and change in habitat features) to avian demogra- will be shared among the PPJV membership and phy, and helping to prepare and review stepdown become supplements to this Implementation Plan. “State Tactical Plans” (below). Ideally, the PPJVTC should serve as the coordinating body that reviews and attempts to align tactical plans for greatest conservation advantage. This can be accomplished most efficiently by creating working groups and subcommittees (e.g., a Waterfowl Work- ing Group, Grassland Bird Technical Subcommit- tee, etc.) that focus on species group conservation, and report up through the main PPJVTC. It will be vitally important to keep information flowing among partners in order to capitalize on opportunities to integrate projects and leverage additional funding from various sources. Undoubtedly, new tactical plans will come into existence as PPJV partners gain new insights, realize new urgencies, and per- ceive new opportunities. The evolving priorities and Chuck Loesch missions of member organizations will also drive the creation of new tactical plans. This adaptive plan- The lead in monitoring and evaluation should nat- ning framework has, in fact, existed within the PPJV urally fall to the Habitat and Population Evaluation since its inception. The intent is that this Implemen- Team offices, which were created to help support tation Plan will add a cohesive and science-based the planning and evaluation efforts of the PPJV. In foundation, and afford the basis for a new level of addition, some PPJV partners (U.S. Geological Sur- collaboration and leveraging of resources to accom- vey, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, state wildlife plish the overarching goals of PPJV partners. agencies, universities) have significant planning, monitoring, research and evaluation capabilities, and will continue to work in a collaborative way with the HAPET offices. Implementation of conservation programs will be the responsibility of many PPJV partners, particularly land management agencies and non-governmental agencies charged with delivery of conservation programs.

1.38 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR WETLAND AND GRASSLAND CONSERVATION IN THE PPJV

s habitat loss and degradation continue across landscapes, some areas have higher conservation Athe PPJV, current numbers of breeding water- potential than others and it is a job of the PPJV to fowl, grassland birds, shorebirds, waterbirds, and identify these landscapes with an awareness of the resident game birds cannot be sustained unless dynamic annual weather patterns characteristic of conservation efforts are accelerated. Protection of the U.S. PPR. existing habitats and restoration of lost or degraded habitats are the two principal strategies of the PPJV. Providing habitats that are diverse in both structure and location will minimize effects of dry periods on breeding bird populations and their productivity, and increase the resiliency of the prairie landscape. The diversity of land use in the U.S. PPR necessi- tates multiple approaches to conservation, and diverse partners and tactics provide a mechanism to work in all important areas of the PPJV landscape.

Sustain Native Grassland and Wetland Habitats – Land use directly impacts the ecological integrity and social perception of wetlands in the U.S. PPR. Wetlands within a native prairie matrix have very high bird use and are valued by ranchers for stock water and forage. Thus, a central strategy for the PPJV is to work with landowners to find ways to protect native grasslands. In doing so, wetlands are also protected, because they are viewed by ranchers as valuable sources of water and hay. Effective techniques for conserving grassland and wetland habitat include a suite of short- and long-term stewardship programs and incentives for landowners.

Conserving native rangeland directly benefits a host Marissa Ahlering of waterfowl, shorebird, grassland bird, waterbird, and resident game bird species that nest over water While perpetual protection of intact habitats is the or in grassland habitat adjacent to wetlands. number one priority, the second major conservation Restore Grassland and Wetland Habitats – In cer- strategy for the PPJV is restoring historic grassland tain areas of the PPJV, habitat restoration will be and wetland habitats. Fortunately, in addition to essential to offset continuing habitat loss and to restoring habitat to add to the current population of increase the productive capacity of landscapes for wetland and grassland birds, habitat can be restored breeding birds. Wetlands in cropland are more likely by a variety of state and federal programs seeking to be drained than those in grassland unsuitable for diverse natural resource and socio-economic ben- cropping. Moreover, in most years the U.S. PPR has efits. Such benefits include enhanced water quality heterogeneous habitat quality – seldom is the entire and floodwater retention capabilities that result region in good condition to support breeding water- from grassland and wetland restorations. The PPJV fowl and other migratory birds. “Keeping the table is committed to exploring new linkages with part- set” waiting for periods of favorable wetland condi- ners to deliver conservation programs that benefit tions does little good if the table is bare in areas with public interests in multiple ways while remaining high annual precipitation. Even in the most altered consistent with the priority goals of this plan.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.39 LITERATURE CITED

Anteau, M. J. 2012. Do interactions of land use and Doherty, K. E., A. J. Ryba, C. L. Stemler, N. D. Niemuth, climate affect productivity of waterbirds and prai- and W. A. Meeks. 2013. Conservation planning in rie-pothole wetlands? Wetlands, 32(1):1-9. an era of change: state of the US Prairie Pothole Region. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(3):546–563. Bishop, R. A. 1981. Iowa’s Wetlands. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 88(1):11-16. Drever, M. C., A. Wins-Purdy, T. D. Nudds, and R. G. Clark. 2004. Decline of duck nesting success Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. revisited: relationships with predators and wet- 2001. The United States Shorebird Conservation lands in dynamic prairie environments. The Auk Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation 121:497-508. Sciences, Manomet, MA. Dyke, S., D. Fryda, D. Kleyer, J. Williams, B. Hosek, Conley, F. M., and G. van der Kamp. 2001. Monitor- W. Jensen, S. Johnson, A. Robinson, B. Ryck- ing the hydrology of Canadian prairie wetlands to man, B. Stillings, M. Szymanski, S. Tucker, and detect the effects of climate change and land use B. Wiedmann. 2010. Potential impacts of oil and changes. Environmental Monitoring and Assess- gas development on select North Dakota natural ment 67:195–215. resources: a report to the director. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Goblet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwa- Dumanski, S, J. W. Pomeroy, and C. J. Westbrook. ter habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and 2015. Hydrological regime changes in a Canadian Wildlife Service. Washington, DC, USA: FWS/OBS Prairie basin. Hydrol. Process., 29:3893–3904. - 79/31. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10567. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the U.S. 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Fargione, J. E., T. R. Cooper, D. J. Flaspohler, J. Hill, Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. C. Lehman, T. McCoy, S. Mcleod, R. J. Nelson, K. S. Overhauser, and T. Tilman. 2009. Bioenergy Dahl, T. E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in and wildlife: Threats and opportunities for grass- the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. land conservation. BioScience 59(9):767–777. USDOI-FWS, Washington, D.C. Gascoigne, W. R., D. L. Hoag, L. Koontz, B. A. Tangen, Dahl, T. E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands T. L. Shaffer and R. A. Gleason. 2011. Valuing in the United States 1997 to 2009. U.S. Fish and ecosystem and economic services across land-use Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dako- tas, USA. Ecological Economics 70(10):1715-1725. Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous United Gascoigne, W. R., D. L. Hoag, R. R. Johnson, and L. States, mid-1970’ to mid-1980’s. U.S. Department M. Koontz. 2013. Dynamics of land-use change of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing- and conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region of ton, DC. the United States—Environmental and economic implications with linkages to rural community Davis, S. K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passer- well-being, U.S. Geological Survey Professional ines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegeta- Paper 1800, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1800/ tion structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130-1145. Goulson, D. 2013. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal Davis, S. K., S. L. Jones, K. M. Dohms, and T. G. of Applied Ecology 50:977-987. Holmes. 2012. Identification of Sprague’s Pipit nest predators. Pp. 173-182 in C. A. Ribic, F. R. Thomp- Gue, C. T., J. A. Walker, K. R. Mehl, J. S. Gleason, son III, and P. J. Pietz (editors). Video surveillance S. E. Stephens, C. R. Loesch, R. E. Reynolds, and of nesting birds. Studies in Avian Biology (no. 43), B. J. Goodwin. 2013. The effects of a large-scale University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. wind farm on breeding season survival of female mallards and blue-winged teal in the Prairie Pot- Dimitri, C., A. B. Effland, and N. C. Conklin. hole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management, DOI: 2005. The 20th century transformation of US 10.1002/jwmg.583. agriculture and farm policy (Vol. 3). Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Eco- Higgins, K. F., D. E. Naugle, and K. J. Forman. 2002. nomic Research Service. A case study of changing land use practices in the northern Great Plains, U.S.A.: An uncertain future for waterbird conservation. Waterbirds 25:42-50.

1.40 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Kevin Barnes

Jeschke, P., and R. Nauen. 2008. Neonicotinoids— Kiesecker, J. M., J. S. Evans, J. Fargione, K. Doherty, from zero to hero in insecticide chemistry. Pest K. R. Foresman, T. H. Kunz, D. Naugle, N. P. Nib- Management Science 64(11):1084-1098. belink, and N. D. Niemuth. 2011. Win-win for wind and wildlife: a vision to facilitate sustainable devel- Johnson, D. H., and L. D. Igl. 2001. Area require- opment. PLoS ONE 6(4):e17566. doi:10.1371/ ments of grassland birds: A regional perspective. journal.pone.0017566. Auk 118:24-34. Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grass- Johnson, R. R., and K. F. Higgins. 1997. Wetland lands. Pages 247¬257 in J. R. Jehl, Jr., and N. K. resources of eastern South Dakota. Brookings: Johnson, editors. A century of avifaunal change South Dakota State University. Jamestown, ND. in western North America. Cooper Ornithological Johnson, W. C., B. Werner, G. R. Guntenspergen, R. A. Society, Studies in Avian Biology 15. Voldseth, B. Millett, D. E. Naugle, ... & C. Olawsky. Krapu, G. L., D. A. Brandt, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2004. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape Less waste corn, more land in soybeans, and the functional units in a changing climate. BioScience switch to GM crops: trends with important impli- 60(2):128-140. cations to wildlife management. Wildlife Society Johnston, C. A. 2013. Wetland losses due to row crop Bulletin 32(2):127-136. expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Kushlan, J.A., M. J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, Wetlands 33(1):75-182. M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dick- son, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, Jones, S. L., J. S. Dieni, and P. J. Gouse. 2010. Repro- S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. ductive biology of a grassland songbird commu- Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. nity in northcentral Montana. Wilson Journal of Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conserva- Ornithology 122:455–464. tion for the Americas: The North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1. Washington, Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. D.C.: Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: A community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85 (7.28). Jamestown, ND.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.41 Laingen, C. 2012. Delineating the 2007 Corn Belt Niemuth, N. D., J. A. Walker, J. S. Gleason, C. R. region. In Papers of the Applied Geography Con- Loesch, R. E. Reynolds, S. E. Stephens, and M.A. ferences Vol. 35. Erickson. 2013. Influence of wind turbines on presence of willet, marbled godwit, Wilson’s phala- Lark, T. J., J. M. Salmon, and H. K. Gibbs. 2015. rope and black tern on wetlands in the Prairie Pot- Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and hole Region of North Dakota and South Dakota. biofuel policies in the United States. Environmen- Waterbirds 36(3):263-276. tal Research Letters 10:044003. Niemuth, N. D., K. L. Fleming, and R. R. Reyn- Loesch, C. R., R. E. Reynolds, and L. T. Hansen. 2012. olds. 2014. Waterfowl conservation in the US An assessment of re-directing breeding waterfowl Prairie Pothole Region: confronting the com- conservation relative to predictions of climate plexities of climate change. Public Library of change. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management Science One 9(6):e100034. doi:10.1371/journal. 3(1):1-22. pone.0100034. Loesch, C. R., J. A. Walker, R. E. Reynolds, J. S. Gleason, N. D. Niemuth, S. E. Stephens, and M. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2014. A. Erickson. 2013. Effect of wind energy devel- The state of the birds 2014 report. US Department opment on breeding duck densities in the Prairie of Interior, Washington, DC. Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan 77:587–598. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.481. Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Lopez-Antia, A., M. E. Ortiz-Santaliestra, F. Mougeot, Strengthening the Biological Foundation. R. Mateo. 2013. Experimental exposure of red- Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife legged partridges (Alectoris rufa) to seeds coated Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos with imidacloprid, thiram and difenoconazole. Naturales. Ecotoxicology 22:125–138. Main, A. R., J. V. Headley, K. M. Peru, N. L. Michel, A. North American Waterfowl Management Plan J. Cessna, and C. A. Morrissey. 2014. Widespread [NAWMP]. 2012. North American Waterfowl Man- use and frequent detection of neonicotinoid insec- agement Plan: people conserving waterfowl and ticides in wetlands of Canada’s Prairie Pothole wetlands. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Region. PLoS one, 9(3):e92821. Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. McCauley, L. A., M. J. Anteau, M. Post van der Berg, and M. T. Wiltermuth. 2015. Land use and wet- Oslund, F. T., R. R. Johnson, and D. R. Hertel. 2010. land drainage affect water levels and dynamics of Spatial and temporal variations in wet area of wet- remaining wetlands. Ecosphere 6(6):92. lands in the Prairie Pothole Region of Minnesota from 1980 to 2007. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Mearns, L. O., W. Gutowski, R. Jones, R. Leung, S. Management 1:131–135. McGinnis, A. Nunes, and Y. Qian. 2009. A regional climate change assessment program for North Peterjohn, B. G., and J. R. Sauer. 1999. Population America. Eos 90(36):311. status of North American grassland birds from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, 1966-1996. Miller, M. R., J. Y. Takekawa, J. P. Fleskes, D. L. Studies in Avian Biology 19:27-44. Orthmeyer, M. L. Casazza, and W. M. Perry, 2005. Spring migration of northern pintails from PPJV. 2003. PPJV15 1987-2002: The Prairie Pothole California’s Central Valley wintering area tracked Joint Venture. Progress Report. U.S. Fish and with satellite telemetry: routes, timing and desti- Wildlife Service, Prairie Pothole Joint Venture: nations. Can. J. Zool. 83:1314-1332. Ducks Unlimited, 2003.

Millett, B., W. C. Johnson, and G. Guntenspergen. Reynolds, R. E., T. L. Shaffer, R. W. Renner, W. E. 2009. Climate trends of the North American prai- Newton, and B. D. J. Batt. 2001. Impact of the rie pothole region 1906-2000. Climatic Change Conservation Reserve Program on duck recruit- 93:243–267. ment in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4):765-780. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2016. Honey Production Report. ISSN: 1949-1492. Reynolds, R. E., T. L. Shaffer, C. R. Loesch, and R. R. Cox, Jr. 2006. The Farm Bill and duck production in the Prairie Pothole Region: increasing the bene- Niemuth, N. D., B. Wangler, and R. E. Reynolds. fits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:963–974. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation in wet area of wetland basins in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota and South Dakota. Wetlands 30:1053-1064.

1.42 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Rosenberg, K. V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Tokumoto, J., M. Danjo, Y. Kobayashi, K. Kinoshita, Ford, D. Reynolds, J. D. Alexander, C. J. Beard- T. Omotehara , A. Tatsumi, M. Hashiguchi, T. more, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, Sekijima, H. Kamisoyama, T. Yokoyama, H. A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. Kitagawa, and N. Hoshi. 2013. Effects of exposure E. Easton, J. J. Giocomo, R. H. Keller, A. E. Mini, to clothianidin on the reproductive system of male A. O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, quails. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 75:755–760. doi: 10.1292/ H. Stabins, J. Stanton, and T. Will. 2016. Partners jvms.12-0544. in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revi- sion for Canada and Continental United States. [USDA] United State Department of Agriculture- Farm Partners in Flight Science Committee. Service Agency. 2013. CRP enrollment and rental payments by county, 1986–2013. http://www.fsa. Sargeant, A. B., R. J. Greenwood, M. A. Sovada, and usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/enrolledcounty13.xls T. L. Shaffer. 1993. Distribution and abundance of predators that affect duck production in the Prai- U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment rie Pothole Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canada. 1986. The North American Waterfowl Resource Publication 194. Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Inte- Sauer, J. R., and W. A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the rior, Washington, DC. North American Breeding Bird Survey using hier- archical models. Auk 128:87-98. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA–ERS]. 2015. Atlas of rural and Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, small-town America—Jobs, unemployment rate, D. J. J. Ziolkowski, and W. A. Link. 2014. The outmigration patterns: Washington, D.C., U.S. North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and Department of Agriculture Economic Research analysis 1966-2013. Version 01.30.2015. USGS Service. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. data-products/atlas-of-rural-and-small-town- america.aspx, accessed March 22, 2016. Shaffer, J. A., and D. A. Buhl. 2015. Effects of wind-energy facilities on breeding grassland bird U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Agri- distributions. Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/ cultural Conservation. Farm Program Payments cobi.12569. Are an Important Factor in Landowners’ Decisions to Convert Grassland to Cropland, Report to Con- Skagen, S.K., and G. Thompson. 2001. Northern gressional Requesters, September. Plains/Prairie Potholes regional shorebird conservation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash- Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator ington, D.C. of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:893-901. Skagen, S. K., D. A. Granfors, and C. P. Melcher. 2008. On determining the significance of ephemeral con- Wiltermuth, M.T. 2014. Influences of Climate -vari tinental wetlands to North American migratory ability and landscape modification on water shorebirds. The Auk. 125:20-29. dynamics, community structure, and amphi- pod populations in large prairie wetlands and: Skagen, S. K., and G. Thompson. 2001. Northern implications for waterbird conservation. Disser- plains/prairie potholes regional shorebird tation. North Dakota State University, Fargo, conservation plan, version 1.0 http://www. North Dakota, USA. http://search.proquest.com/ shorebirdplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ docview/1650252117 NORPLPP2.pdf Wright, C. K., and M. C. Wimberly. 2013. Recent Stewart, R.E., and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification land use change in the Western Corn Belt threat- of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prai- ens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the rie Region. Resource Publication 92. U.S. Fish and National Academy of Sciences 110(10):4134–4139. Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Tiner, R. W. Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wash- ington, D.C.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.43 PLAN FOUNDATION APPENDIX A: PRAIRIE POTHOLE JOINT VENTURE ORGANIZATION, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The PPJV employs some key elements that make it a successful vehicle for conservation in the prairies: »»The PPJV is popular with landowners because participation is voluntary and programs are non-regulatory. »»The PPJV fosters innovative partnerships among Federal, State and local governments, conservation organizations, the business community, Tribal governments, and private landowners. Some of these partners provide funding, technical expertise, equipment, personnel, and land access. »»The PPJV leverages resources through pooling Marissa Ahlering funding, information, and personnel, accomplishing more in a coordinated process than what would be accomplished individually. Organizational Summary »»The PPJV works regionally in the Prairie Pothole The PPJV, established in 1987 as one of the original Region, but sees the need and opportunity to six, priority joint ventures of the U.S., is made up address larger issues of bird conservation on an of a multi-state Management Board of agencies, international basis in the Western Hemisphere, organizations, and private landowners that share sharing expertise and technical assistance with other joint ventures in the U.S. and Canada and a common interest in the conservation of the with international conservation partners. wetland and grassland ecosystem of the Prairie Pothole Region. The PPJV also consists of a Joint »»PPJV partners work on both public and private Venture Coordinator, Science Coordinator, Habitat lands. Public lands, such as National Wildlife Refuges and State lands act as cornerstones for and Population Team Office (HAPET), Technical PPJV activities. However, they do not provide Committee, Policy Committee, and various other Ad sufficient habitat to sustain an abundance of Hoc Committees or working groups of partners that prairie wildlife. Consequently the main thrust of address other relevant conservation issues pertain- the PPJV is in working with private landowners. ing to the prairies. »»The PPJV is well recognized for its scientific rigor and Participation in the PPJV involves multi-level spatial planning tools that help PPJV partners strategi- representation from a wide cross-section including cally target conservation efforts for the greatest impact landowners, conservation organizations, Federal and best use of limited habitat conservation funding. and State agencies, and other stakeholders inter- »»PPJV partners provide critical leadership in the devel- ested in non-regulatory and voluntary wildlife and opment and implementation of conservation provisions land conservation. in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill.

The boundaries of the PPJV include the Prairie During its existence, the PPJV (1987-2017), part- Pothole Region of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, ners protected, restored, or enhanced millions of South Dakota, and Montana, acres of habitat through a combination of partner funding and private contributions. However, the The PPJV is an informally-constituted partnership prairie pothole states continue to lose grasslands dedicated to bird habitat conservation and is not a and wetlands at alarming rates, potentially fueling legal entity. serious declines in a wide range of bird and other

1.44 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org wildlife species. Success of the PPJV requires the continued coordinated commitment of all partners and steady funding from participating private organizations and State and Federal agencies.

Roles and Responsibilities The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture is a dynamic partnership that functions as a network, not as a hierarchy. Free and open information exchange, willingness to partner at the local, regional and national/international level, emphasis on including scientists, resource managers, researchers, policy makers, administrators, communicators, private landowners, and on constantly seeking additional Kevin Barnes needed talent characterize the PPJV.

MANAGEMENT BOARD members will have the THE PPJV MANAGEMENT BOARD following attributes: represents a conservation CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING organization, agency, corporate/business entity, or a private landowner with a conservation interest; AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: holds an executive leadership position that allows »»Bureau of Land Management for the commitment of personnel and funding; com- mits to actively pursuing partner activities on behalf »»Delta Waterfowl Foundation of the PPJV; seeks support for the PPJV with both »»Ducks Unlimited, Inc. internal and external audiences; and participates in a leadership role at meetings and in other PPJV »»Farm Service Agency activities. While Management Board members rep- »»Iowa Department of Natural Resources resent their agencies and organizations, as Manage- »»Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ment Board members they are also responsible for decision-making that benefits thePPJV as a whole. »»Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks The Management Board provides general oversight »»National Audubon Society and guidance for the Joint Venture. Primarily, the Board oversees the implementation of the goals and »»Natural Resources Conservation Service objectives set forth in the PPJV Implementation »»North Dakota Game and Fish Department Plan. The Board is also a broad policy making group that interprets pertinent policies, such as Farm Bill »»North Dakota Natural Resources Trust programs, into direction and guidance for the PPJV. »»Pheasants Forever The Management Board works closely with the »»South Dakota Department of Joint Venture Coordinator, with other members of Game, Fish and Parks the Management Board in partner/funding activ- »»The National Wildlife Refuge Association ities, and within their respective organization or »»The Nature Conservancy agency to ensure support for the PPJV and related programs. The Management Board receives regular »»U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updates from the Science Coordinator and from the »»Private Landowners HAPET offices, as well as updates from the respective membership. Management Board members are regularly requested by the Coordinator to participate in a variety of external audience activities that are pertinent to the overall success of the PPJV.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.45 The primary responsibility of the Board is to pro- The Management Board will meet in person twice vide policy and financial support for PPJV programs annually, but may also meet as needed for pressing and activities. business as determined by the Board Chair. The Board will hold two teleconferences, as necessary, on Additional responsibilities include: dates between the in person meetings. The U.S. Fish »»Represent your position, but consider the and Wildlife Service Regional Directors for Region 6 collective strength of PPJV and take actions and Region 3 serve as co-chairs of the Board, with beneficial to the larger partnership. either serving as the primary Chair. »»Influence and take action on national policy, legis- The Management Board may be queried on a biennial lative, and funding issues which pertain to the PPJV, especially USDA Farm Bill conservation provisions. basis as to whether or not they wish to see a change in the Board Chair(s). If so, the Chairmanship shall »»Determine policy and guide implementation be rotated as determined by the Board membership. of PPJV activities. The Management Board will consist of no more »»Ensure communication and problem resolution than 20 members and new Board members may be among PPJV partners. added at any time up to the cap. The Board will »»Review and take action on committee review an application or petition for membership recommendations. and give its approval or disapproval. The Board may »»Conduct periodic reviews and assessments of decide that in the interests of the PPJV partner- accomplishments in coordination, biological plan- ship, new members representing different sectors ning, monitoring and evaluation, communications not already on the Board are required. In this case, and outreach, and project implementation. the Board may appoint an ad-hoc subcommittee to »»Seek increased cooperation and collab- find needed representation. oration with other entities that will result in mutual opportunity and benefit.

Neal & MJ Mishler

1.46 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org BOARD PROCEDURES are as follows: PPJV, facilitates the development of PPJV partnerships at all levels, ensures the coordination and In most matters the PPJV Board will operate by administration of FWS appropriated administrative consensus. funding, and oversees the administration of day-to- On issues where consensus cannot be reached, a day operations of the PPJV. simple majority is all that is required for decisions. The JV Coordinator serves as a primary link between In matters of public policy, the PPJV Management members of the Management Board, Science Coor- Board will require a vote. Two-thirds of the Board dinator, other working Committees, HAPET offices, members present (or their officially designated rep- and coordinators of the various bird initiatives and resentative) must vote in favor of a motion for the other joint ventures for day-to-day operations. action to proceed. The JV Coordinator provides overall policy and Board members (or their representatives) must be informational guidance and recommendations to the present at the meeting to vote. Management Board, HAPET and other elements of The same procedures will apply for decision-making the PPJV organization and facilitates all functional by e-mail or phone. elements of Joint Venture operations. The Coordi- nator facilitates biological planning, monitoring and The CO-CHAIRS of the BOARD are responsible evaluation, strategic planning, and conservation for conducting regular meetings of the Board and delivery in the PPJV. ensuring regular evaluations and assessments of Joint Venture activities and progress. The Chair The JV Coordinator serves as primary staff for the coordinates, facilitates and participates in the Board Chair. The Coordinator is responsible for coor- decision-making process of the Board. The Chair dinating all aspects of NAWCA projects for the PPJV functions as a spokesperson for the PPJV in public and provides the Board with a draft recommended relations efforts, particularly at high-level meet- ranking for approval. The Coordinator serves as a ings and other public gatherings. The Chair serves member in all standing committees established by on and participates in the Association of Joint the Management Board. Venture Management Board activities. The Chair The PPJV SCIENCE COORDINATOR is responsible may appoint an alternate or designee to function for coordinating and facilitating the overall PPJV as a spokesperson in any JV activities, subject to science and technical activities. The JV Science approval by the Management Board. Coordinator chairs the PPJV Technical Committee BOARD members are responsible for participating on and serves as the primary link between the Tech- working committees as required, as well as review- nical Committee and the Management Board. The ing PPJV initiatives and projects, and assessing JV JV Science Coordinator provides regular updates accomplishments within their respective organiza- on overall science and technical activities to the tions. Members assist in bringing new initiatives to Management Board and serves as a member on all the Board, ensure good internal communications technical subcommittees. of PPJV matters in their respective organizations or The JV Science Coordinator works with partners to working circles, provide external communications effectively align and coordinate conservation deliv- and information on PPJV funding needs to key con- ery programs, provide technical guidance, identify tacts in the agricultural policy sector, the various needed research, and assist in the identification bird initiatives, and funding sources, corporate and development of federal, state, and private grant entities, and foundations. Board members ensure proposals supporting the conservation goals and that the PPJV is successful through their individual objectives of the PPJV. actions and commitment. The JV Science Coordinator represents the PPJV part- The JOINT VENTURE COORDINATOR is respon- nership at national and international meetings and sible for coordinating and facilitating the overall in the broader science arena with respect to national development and implementation of PPJV activities. and international bird conservation initiatives. The JV Coordinator assists the Management Board in the development of leadership and vision for the

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.47 PPJV STANDING AND AD HOC COMMITTEES are »»Provide recommendations of biological infor- constituted and approved by the Management Board mation needs with accompanying costs and and their charges are determined with the assis- potential results where appropriate. tance of the Board and the JV Coordinator. Standing »»Facilitate a unified working process between Committees have specific goals and assignments as all states; and between PPJV and PHJV. Ensure determined by the Management Board. Additional information exchange among PPJV partners. committees may be formed as the need arises. Com- »»Review PPJV Implementation Plan for timeliness mittee Chairmen are designated by the Committee concurrent with NAWMP and other Bird Initiative Plan and maintain a close working relationship with the Updates and update PPJV Implementation Plan as JV Coordinator on all Committee issues. Committee needed for Management Board review and approval. chairs make regular reports to the PPJV Manage- »»Deliver technical and science-based information ment Board. Current PPJV Committees include but and recommendations to the Board in a timely are not limited to: and proactive manner for consideration. »»Develop, if needed, sub-committees for certain aspects of PPJV work, such as a waterfowl STANDING COMMITTEES: sub-committee, shorebird sub-committee, landbird sub-committee, or waterbird sub-committee. Technical Committee: »»Composed of 14 technical experts representing PPJV Farm Bill Committee: partner organizations with knowledge in breeding »»Composed of representatives of the Management bird biology, adaptive resource management, prairie Board with specific interest or connections to ecology, agricultural issues, management decision Farm Bill issues and concerns. Representatives making, and prairie wetland and grassland issues. will ensure timely and up-to-date communications »»The Technical Committee will work with ad hoc with members of the agricultural community working groups on a variety of PPJV issues. The and other Farm Bill working groups. Technical Committee will also develop a network of PPJV affiliated science peers which can be recruited Responsibilities include: for assistance. The Technical Committee will work with »»Provide regular updates to the Board on agri- State Wildlife Grant contacts and other similar contacts cultural policy issues affecting the prairies. to develop coordinated planning where appropriate. »»Develop action items for the Board regard- »»Representatives will work in a team, and are ing regional and national legislative and proactive in identifying the needs of the PPJV policy issues affecting the PPJV. and in recognizing opportunities to advance PPJV objectives. They think strategically, and they consider broad impacts and issues as well as specific Communications Committee: questions. They further knowledge and development »»Composed of Management Board members and of the biological foundations of the PPJV. communications contacts in or associated with the PPJV. Members will have an interest and some Responsibilities include: background or expertise in communications. »»Review, evaluate and refine habitat and population objectives. Responsibilities include: »»Ensure that critical assumptions and questions are »»Guide and assist the planning, development, imple- being addressed through scientific research. mentation, and evaluation of a communications/education program (including development of such materials »»Conduct periodic evaluations and assessments as accomplishment reports, newsletters, and surveys of PPJV objectives, strategies and accomplish- for internal and external audiences of the PPJV). ments, and their effects on bird populations.

»»Assist in prioritizing management strategies and activities including targeting landscapes and areas for recommended management practices.

1.48 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org Policy Committee: »»Provide information, ideas, recommendations, and »»Composed of Management Board members, partners, suggestions to the PPJV on strategic planning, moni- and landowners interested in Federal and State agency toring and evaluation, and accomplishment reporting. policy development and Congressional operations and Joint Venture Management Board members or communications. Members will have some background Technical Committee members in each State who or expertise in policy making at various levels. participate in these working groups will be respon- Responsibilities may include: sible for facilitating the group in their work and for communication on a regular basis with the Joint »»Discuss and strategize approaches to policy Venture Coordinator on the activities of the group. actions with potential impact on the prairies, wetlands, grasslands, or other related topics. Habitat and Population »»Develop recommended courses of action for Board discussion and decision. Evaluation Team (HAPET) HAPET offices in Regions 3 and 6 were established in 1989 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the AD HOC COMMITTEES: request of the PPJV Management Board. In 2013, the two offices underwent a thorough review of program Awards Committee: functions. Input received during the review from both Service and PPJV partners clearly revealed the Composed of Management Board members. »» offices played an integral role in conservation deliv- »»Solicits and receives award nominations, and recom- ery within and beyond that of the Prairie Pothole mends worthy recipients to the Management Board. Region, but identified a need for improved efficiency. »»Recognizes partnerships (Group or Organization), land The two offices were consolidated under one office managers (Stewardship), professionals (Professional), in 2015 with a project leader and core staff concen- communications and outreach (Communication), and trated in a centralized location (Bismarck, ND) and most active Board member of the year (Board). other staff collocated to ensure PPJV priorities were met across the PPR. STATE ACTION GROUPS/STEERING COMMITTEES/ ALL-BIRD WORKING GROUPS are broad-based Originally, the primary functions of the HAPET’s groups whose members support the various bird were to coordinate a waterfowl population and pro- initiatives (NAWMP, PIF, NAWCP, and USSCP), duction survey (Four-Square Mile Survey) and use NAWCA, and the PPJV within their particular state. computer models to assist in developing waterfowl Membership includes key partners with a wide array management plans for Wetland Management Districts of interests and perspectives. (WMDs) in the PPJV. In 1990, HAPET offices were tasked by their respective Regions with acquiring The Action Group/Committee/Working Group’s needed biological information to “feed” models and primary role is to provide state-wide coordination develop computer techniques and procedures which for planning and implementation of PPJV objectives would enhance wildlife management capabilities and and activities. Specific activities include: assess progress in meeting management objectives. »»Coordinate planning, monitoring and evaluation, research, and project development With the adoption of wetland/grassland-associated to avoid duplication and determine how non-waterfowl migratory bird objectives in 1995 by programs can complement each other. the PPJV Management Board, HAPET expanded its »»Coordinate all Joint Venture activities when there role to include these other bird groups (e.g., grass- is more than one Joint Venture in the State. land birds, shorebirds, marshbirds) as continental planning initiatives were developed for these birds. »»Coordinate NAWCA projects for timely submis- Use of cutting edge Geographic Information System sions and avoidance of in-state competition. (GIS) technology is being employed as a routine »»Facilitate communications on PPJV activities part of all aspects of HAPET projects and process and needs between partners, the media, legis- to improve biological knowledge integrate planning lators, and other local and regional officials. for strategic habitat conservation of all PPJV focal migratory birds.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.49 The mission of HAPET is to provide partners with advance, particularly with modeling capabilities. technical assistance and information to aid in Evaluation, monitoring and research as part of the achieving the goals and objectives of the PPJV and HAPET office’s mission will continue to evolve and the various migratory bird plans including NAWMP, provide information that will enhance the Joint Ven- PIF, USSCP, and NAWCP. The office serves as the ture’s conservation delivery objectives for the region. lead team for biological planning, and monitoring HAPET personnel participate in the PPJV Techni- and evaluation within the joint venture. HAPET cal Committee, and represent the PPJV on various personnel gather, analyze, and assemble pertinent regional and national scale biological planning and information that provides managers with the critical assessment teams. HAPET office personnel work biological foundation necessary for management closely with the PPJV Coordinator on overall plan- decisions relating to waterfowl, other migratory ning, monitoring and evaluation activities and with birds, and wetland/grassland habitat. Cooperative the many PPJV partners in the acquisition of digital efforts with partners and an adaptive management data, development of spatially explicit models, and approach are integral to HAPET operations. production of GIS products.

In building a scientific foundation, PPJV partners are critical to the overall mission and success of the joint venture. As a partnership, the PPJV is collaborative and cooperative in meeting the goals of the joint venture, yet it is recognized that each partner maintains its own mission and agenda. In the case of building a scientific foundation, numerous partners work in cooperation. Some, such as the Ducks Unlimited’s Great Plains Regional Office, maintain a research and development section and GIS labora- tory. Others, such as the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center and the Mid-Continent Science Center, have numerous scientists on staff and various laboratories. Each of the State agencies has a cadre of scientists and various scientific capabilities. Neal & MJ Mishler Cooperative Wildlife Research Units and Universities in the PPJV have staff and equipment as do various Principle activities of HAPET include: biological Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Reclama- planning (Mallard Model), monitoring waterfowl tion, the Bureau of Land Management, the Corps of populations and habitat, Breeding Birds Survey Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. analysis, breeding marsh bird and shorebird sur- HAPET and the PPJV Technical Committee seek to veys, assessment of USDA programs including Con- leverage scientific information and scarce financial servation Reserve Program and impacts of “Swamp- resources to avoid duplication of effort and thereby buster” protection, restorable wetland inventory, maximize the conservation capabilities of the Joint and implementation of numerous GIS projects and Venture to meet conservation objectives. evaluation projects. It is the policy of the PPJV to seek partnerships in It is expected that significant work will continue to order to create capacities for landscape-level plan- occur in building the information base necessary ning and assessment, including decision support to understand and manage bird populations in models, conservation planning guides and potential the prairies, and that technology will continue to web-based population monitoring programs.

1.50 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRAIRIE POTHOLE JOINT VENTURE BOARD MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

AUDUBON housed within the PPJV will be essential in an evolv- Audubon is committed to the ongoing protection, ing IBA program. enhancement and restoration of the unparalleled Audubon’s partnership with Birdlife International wetland complexes in the Prairie Pothole Region to also provides a potential opportunity for the PPJV to benefit the myriad of waterfowl and other avian spe- increase the effectiveness of bird conservation beyond cies that are dependent upon the region. As such, the borders of the PPR. Audubon’s work with the inter- participation in the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture national bird conservation community has potential (PPJV) through ongoing work with the Management to link the PPJV with the Southern Cone Grasslands Board, the Farm Bill subcommittee, and other ave- Bird Conservation Initiative, which includes South- nues as appropriate is a high priority for Audubon. ern Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Audubon is committed to building capacity to In addition, Audubon will continue to be an active assist the PPJV partnership in the implementation advocate at the national and state level for the PPJV of integrated conservation strategies for all migra- and for the policies and programs that fund and/ tory birds, with emphasis on declining species that or facilitate on-the-ground avian conservation. This coincide with Audubon’s bird conservation prior- includes funding for Joint Ventures, NAWCA, and the ities. As the designated U.S. partner for Birdlife Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, lobby- International, Audubon’s bird conservation priori- ing for the Conservation Title of Farm Bill 2007, and ties are established based on the IUCN/Birdlife Red other programmatic and fiscal program needs. List of globally threatened species and the Audubon WatchList of avian species at risk. The WatchList BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT is formulated based on independent assessments The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports published by BirdLife International, Wetlands Inter- the PPJV Board member roles and responsibilities national, Partners in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird as outlined in the 2017 Implementation Plan. BLM’s Council, and Waterbirds for the Americas. niche in the PPJV is characterized by both routine Audubon is actively implementing the Important management and proactive activities. BLM adminis- Bird Areas (IBA) Program across the U.S. to foster ters significant surface and “split” (private surface, stewardship and conservation of essential wildlife federal mineral) estate acres in the western PPJV. habitat in 46 states. Through a science-based pro- BLM’s land management (through law, policy, and cess of site identification, prioritization, outreach guidance) contributes to the achievement of gen- and education, and monitoring, Audubon’s IBA eral habitat goals and objectives. BLM also funds program lays the groundwork for community-based and conducts proactive activities to implement and conservation. Audubon will work through the IBA monitor wetland and upland habitat improvements. program to benefit the PPJV in the identification Proposed actions on BLM administered lands (both of new stakeholders, including policy-makers, surface and split estate) are subject to Endangered private landowners, government agencies, and vol- Species Act consultation, site-specific environmen- unteers for monitoring, to promote and implement tal analysis, compliance with the Migratory Bird land-management practices that recognize the eco- Treaty Act, and conformance to BLM’s Special Sta- logical importance of these lands for birds consis- tus Species policies. For PPJV, this is particularly tent with the PPJV implementation plan. Audubon important as energy development has been identi- will work to expand the potential partners for the fied as having the potential to impact various pri- Joint Venture as they implement a state-based IBA ority species. Interest in federal oil and gas leasing program. The expertise, experience, and spatial data and exploration continues to grow throughout the

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.51 region. A new wind energy facility has recently been We believe the whole spectrum of the PPJV’s work (from proposed on private and BLM-administered lands research and evaluation, direct delivery to engagement near Glasgow, MT. in public policy) represents the best hope to maintain and enhance breeding duck carrying capacity while The BLM is systematically assessing BLM-admin- maintaining and enhancing duck recruitment. istered lands to evaluate whether they are meeting land health standards and guidelines for grazing Delta Waterfowl’s role within the PPJV will be the management. This process includes watershed and following: wildlife habitat assessments. »»Deliver intensive management treatments (predator management and Hen Houses) to increase incremental duck production in those landscapes where duck recruitment is below desired levels. »»Work collaboratively with the partners to conduct high quality research and evaluation. »»Broaden our historic biological research to include new, value added disciplines to include human dimensions, policy evaluation and economic analysis as these topics are of increasing importance to the PPJV and our partners. »»Work to create landscape scale solutions via the Chuck Loesch Farm Bill and other policy venues to positively impact duck carrying capacity and recruitment. The Partners in Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan »»Engage with our state and NGO partners to enhance (2016) specified noxious weed infestations as a hunter recruitment via dedicated programming threat to birds breeding in the U.S. PPR. BLM Mon- and capacity to address the decline of waterfowl tana/Dakotas plays a regional leadership role and hunters in the PPJV program area and beyond. has a proactive Integrated Weed Management program, working in partnership with counties, state, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC. and other federal agencies in cooperative efforts to Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) endorses the PPJV prevent and treat weed infestations. Implementation Plan, and is fully supportive of its In summary, the PPJV Implementation Plan will be goals and objectives. DU believes that the PPJV is an important source of information for the BLM to integral to the success of the North American Water- evaluate RMP level management alternatives, ana- fowl Management Plan (NAWMP), and therefore is central to the mission of Ducks Unlimited. lyze site-specific proposed actions, and determine whether lands are meeting land health standards. DU will continue to actively participate on the PPJV These are the mechanisms by which BLM will inte- Management Board and Technical Committee, as grate the goals of the PPJV into programmatic and well as offer assistance on special projects as war- site-specific management decisions. Additionally, ranted. Many elements of the PPJV Implementation BLM is an active partner in NAWCA grants and MT Plan are also reflected in DU’s “Preserve Our Prai- Wetlands Legacy, and conducts inventory, habitat ries” Initiative plan; therefore, we envision opportu- improvement, and monitoring through base funding nities to collaborate in many areas. Our focus will and Challenge Cost Share partnerships. be on programs that are most beneficial to waterfowl populations, and our investments will be prioritized DELTA WATERFOWL FOUNDATION towards projects that provide perpetual or long-term benefits to the most valuable and at-risk habitats Delta Waterfowl continues to be a committed member for waterfowl. of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture and its Board, Technical Committee, and Policy Committee as the DU’s overarching priority for the PPJV is to con- partnership is in close alignment with Delta Water- serve current duck production capacity. Purchased fowl’s mission, strategic plan, and geographic focus. easements, fee title acquisitions, and effective public

1.52 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org policies—especially conservation compliance provi- landowners who volunteer to place cropland into sions and conservation title funding in the U.S. Farm conservation covers for 10 to 15 years. Currently, Bill and conservation funding in the Department of over 4 million acres are enrolled in CRP in Iowa, Min- Interior budget—will be our primary approaches nesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. to securing the habitat base. We will continue to Of these lands over 1 million acres are in wetlands dedicate significant staff and financial resources to or wetland buffers, while most of the remaining CRP these endeavors. Moreover we will continue to use land is planted to grass. our non-federal funds, including private donations, An intent of FSA is to administer the CRP in a man- as match for NAWCA and other programs. ner that conserves natural resources and enhances In addition to habitat protection, DU offers expertise the environment. Because this goal is fully consis- in wetland and upland restoration and enhance- tent with the mission of the PPJV, and because coop- ment. Our staff of biologists, surveyors, engineers, eration and communication will help us enhance and construction managers will continue to work in the populations of prairie avian populations, and partnership with other agencies and organizations the sustainability of both the prairie ecosystems on projects that provide meaningful benefits to and rural communities, FSA views participation in waterfowl and other birds. We also realize that the the PPJV as an opportunity to enhance the benefits waterfowl population goals of the PPJV will not be from the CRP. achieved by traditional habitat protection and restoration programs alone. We need to find new ways As a member of the PPJV, FSA will participate in the to work with farmers and ranchers to conserve wet- preparation and review of PPJV documents, share lands and provide alternative nesting habitat. Our data whenever disclosure rules permit, and partic- staff of biologists and agronomists will collaborate ipate in analysis of conservation options. FSA will with universities, organizations, and agencies on attend PPJV meetings whenever possible. If conflicts innovative approaches to sustainability that include or budgets prohibit attendance, FSA will assure par- restoring and retaining shallow wetlands throughout ticipation through correspondence. the PPJV landscape in the Dakotas and Montana.

DU’s Bismarck office is also staffed with researchers IOWA and GIS analysts who conduct original research and The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) analyses in support of programs of mutual interest to has placed a high priority on the responsibilities DU and the PPJV. We look forward to continuing our and opportunities afforded our agency and the state collaboration with scientists at the HAPET Offices, of Iowa through the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, as well as (PPJV). We are pleased to have this opportunity to faculty and researchers at various universities. re-affirm our commitment to the PPR through the Effective communications and marketing will be goals and objectives of the PPJV. important to the success of the PPJV. Ducks Unlimited The PPJV has stimulated significant and impressive employs professional communications staff at both wetland and prairie restoration efforts in the Prairie the Bismarck office and our national headquarters Pothole Region (PPR) of Iowa. The key to our past who are willing and able to assist the PPJV in these success has been cooperation and coordination with endeavors. We believe garnering increased finan- other conservation organizations, NGOs, private cial and policy support for conservation will require business and industry, local groups, and individual greater public discussion and awareness of the eco- citizens and landowners. IDNR has worked with logical goods and services of wetlands and grasslands. partners to identify priority areas for restoration of We look forward to collaborating with the PPJV to wetland/grassland complexes, and has made signif- propagate these values across the prairie landscape. icant progress toward those objectives. Since 1987, 42,656 acres have been acquired by IDNR and the FARM SERVICE AGENCY U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as WMAs or WPAs. All of The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers the these acres are managed by IDNR. This represents Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), America’s 35% of the total public acres managed by the IDNR largest conservation program. CRP compensates wildlife bureau within the PPR.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.53 Iowa supports the PPJV region-wide planning MINNESOTA approach and agrees with the conservation pri- The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ ority placed on the Missouri and Prairie Coteaus. (DNR) Division of Fish and Wildlife (FAW) supports However, IDNR also recognizes the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the Prairie Pothole wetland protection, restoration, and enhancement Joint Venture (PPJV) Board members as outlined in of wetland habitats in the eastern portion of the the 2017 Implementation Plan. FAW’s ongoing and PPJV, and takes responsibility for coordinating proactive management activities fit into and support these efforts within the PPR of Iowa. Conservation of the plan. existing habitats, alone, will not lead to the accomplishments of PPJV bird conservation objectives. To The DNR launched the first North American “Save meet objectives, we must place additional habitats the Wetlands” program in 1951, which marked on the landscape through a combination of public the beginning of Minnesota’s Wildlife Management land acquisition and effective delivery of USDA con- Area (WMA) system. The DNR currently manages servation programs. 624,850 acres on 1,279 WMAs and 7,930 acres on 766 Aquatic Management Areas (AMA) in the In Iowa, we are successfully implementing wetland PPJV region of the state. The USFWS manages restoration programs in the most intensively modi- 1,131 Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) totaling fied part of the PPR and reversing the trend of con- 211,010 acres and eight National Wildlife Refuges tinued habitat loss. The resulting landscape could totaling 150,580 acres. The Board of Water and impact how row-crop agriculture eventually impacts Soil Resources (BWSR) manages 6,087 permanent wetland habitats in other states. IDNR is working to conservation easements totaling 253,000 acres. The stop, and hopefully reverse, trends in breeding range DNR assists and supports other agencies on wildlife contraction of many species of migratory birds. IDNR habitat efforts through law, policy, guidance, and values the opportunity to participate in PPR research political support, including influencing U.S. Depart- and monitoring efforts, and to evaluate the impacts ment of Agriculture farm programs. of Iowa wetland restoration and enhancement accomplishments on migratory bird populations. Our goal is to integrate wetland/grassland com- Our goal is to integrate plexes into the agricultural landscape. It is import- wetland/grassland complexes ant for both rural and urban communities to be able to observe how agriculture and wetlands can into the agricultural landscape. co-exist to the mutual benefit of all people. Our success is evident from the broad base of support that currently exists for wetland restoration activities in The shallow lakes program began in 1985 with one Iowa. The extent to which wetland conservation and full-time employee and has since expanded to 9.5 restoration is identified as part of the water- qual full-time positions. The goals of the program are to ity solution has huge implications for the future of facilitate the management of shallow lakes through wildlife habitat across the PPR. habitat assessments, identify management needs and document management results, and provide technical support to Area Wildlife Managers. The DNR also makes significant contributions to the multi-agency/NGO Farm Bill Assistance Program (FBAP) in Minnesota, placing a FB biologist in almost every county in the farmland region of the state.

In 2008, Minnesota voters passed the Clean Water Land and Legacy Act which annually contributes

1.54 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org 100 million dollars to the Outdoor Heritage Fund a broad partnership, including PPJV Board member (OHF) to restore, protect, and enhance wildlife hab- organizations, to collaborate on activities as directed itat. Minnesota conservation partners shortly there- or needed by the Board, the PPJV Technical Com- after drafted the Minnesota Prairie Conservation mittee, the PPJV Implementation Plan and the state Plan to help guide conservation efforts across west- action plan. FWP will coordinate with the Montana ern Minnesota. The majority of OHF projects and BLM state office, USFWS personnel in Montana, and dollars have been expended in the PPJV counties other key conservation partners to host PPJV meet- targeted at specific landscapes where we feel we can ings periodically and to assist the Board and PPJV have the greatest wildlife and habitat benefits with as needed. limited resources. In 2015, the DNR led another FWP will provide funds for PPJV field personnel multi-agency/NGO effort to develop the Pheasant activities, NAWCA projects, and other wetland/ Summit Action Plan. This plan also identifies target migratory bird-related projects from the Montana landscapes to focus both protection and enhance- Migratory Bird Wetland Program and other sources. ment/ restoration work, and fits perfectly into the Prairie Conservation Plan. NATURAL RESOURCES However, we are still losing ground. Since 2007, CONSERVATION SERVICE Minnesota has lost 770,000 acres of CRP and is Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) scheduled to lose another 400,000 acres over the role is to be involved and participate in the discus- next three years. Between 1997 and 2009, Minne- sions of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) and sota lost 18% of the state’s wetland basins, ranking provide input in coordination with the President’s highest among PPJV states. wetland agenda of one million acres each of wet- In summary, the goals and objectives of the FAW lands created, restored, and protected for a total of are closely aligned with those of the PPJV plan. three million acres. Accomplishments will contribute substantially to NRCS responsibilities are to provide an open dialog PPJV goals and objectives. This agency will work in with the PPJV offering science-based information broad partnerships that include federal, state, and and ideas in regard to NRCS programs and technical local government, non-governmental organizations, resources science-based. and public and private land managers on a larger- than-past scale. NRCS will contribute the most current data through the National Resources Inventory (NRI). This data MONTANA was used in identifying wetlands nationwide and is the basis by which the President’s wetland agenda Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) is respon- was decided. NRCS offers the NRI data for use by the sible to provide a representative to the PPJV Man- PPJV as an educational tool in communicating ideas. agement Board, assist with the content and conduct of meetings, review and comment on plans, review, and comment on and rank NAWCA projects from THE NATURE CONSERVANCY the PPJV. In partnership with the USFWS and other The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is fully supportive state and federal agencies and conservation orga- of the objectives and actions identified in the 2017 nizations, FWP helps identify and coordinate con- PPJV Implementation Plan. To assist in the attain- servation needs and implement migratory bird and ment of these objectives, TNC will participate as wetland conservation projects throughout the PPJV appropriate in the following ways. area of Montana. Direct land conservation – Consistent with TNC FWP will provide both a Board representative and, Ecoregional Plans, TNC will acquire key tracts, as funding is available, a technical representative to hold or transfer these tracts to other conservation assist the PPJV in conducting its activities. It will organizations, manage lands that are retained for also assist in writing and reviewing plans, monitor- their native biological diversity, and work with other ing joint venture progress within the state, encour- landowners to optimize land management for biodi- aging new partnerships, and facilitating NAWCA versity. TNC has 7 field offices in the PPJV region, project proposal development. It will also work with and owns more than 50,000 acres of land there for

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.55 conservation purposes. These land acquisition and In summary, TNC has a sincere and compelling management activities will be largely in support of interest in conservation across the PPJV. We are PPJV Implementation Plan goals, and will continue committed to collaborating with other conservation and accelerate in future years. partners to advance conservation in the region consistent with the goals of the Implementation Plan. Government relations – TNC employs a staff of We look with great excitement to a renewed effort on government relations specialists that work closely behalf of PPJV partners in achieving ambitious goals. with legislation and elected officials to achieve policy goals and funding for government partners in support of conservation. These employees are found NORTH DAKOTA both in regional locations (e.g., Minneapolis for MN, The North Dakota Game and Fish Department SD, ND) and in worldwide headquarters in Arling- (NDGFD) has been involved in the development and ton, VA. They are highly effective at working through implementation of the North American Waterfowl legislative processes to secure funds and policy ini- Management Plan and Prairie Pothole Joint Ven- tiatives (e.g., funding for Northern Tallgrass NWR, ture from their inception. NDGFD is responsible MN CREP, etc.). A key activity in the next several for integrating the needs, concerns of and benefits years will be development and promotion of a new to the State into the planning and actions of the Farm Bill—this is the single most important issue PPJV in North Dakota. NDGFD is also responsible facing the PPJV today. in large part for informing citizens, legislators, and other interests in North Dakota relative to waterfowl Science and planning – TNC has staff capacity to conservation needs and opportunities in ND, and to address relevant scientific issues, identify key con- the purposes of the NAWMP and PPJV. NDGFD has servation landscapes, and produce spatially-explicit had a major role in organizing and supporting the models and maps to prioritize conservation efforts. PPJV and promoting the partnerships, coordination These staff and tools are regularly used in support and cooperation needed to make the objectives and of TNC field activities, and can be easily merged with actions of the PPJV compatible with other needs and other partner efforts to optimize collaboration. interests of the State, and thus acceptable to the Collaboration and leverage – TNC collaborates people of North Dakota. with many other PPJV partners to achieve conserva- NDGFD provides substantial personnel and water- tion goals, and will continue to do so in the future. fowl management expertise to assist with a wide In some cases, TNC non-federal expenditures have variety of Central Flyway, National Flyway Council, been used to provide match for NAWCA funds to and PPJV endeavors and committees. other partners. We expect to continue that in the future, and look for other creative ways to provide NDGFD serves an important role in the delivery funding for conservation – especially in the Dakotas. and implementation of NAWMP and PPJV actions through its Private Land Initiative (PLI). The PLI is Marketing – TNC also maintains a staff of special- delivered through nine private land biologists across ists in marketing and public relations. While their the state who work with a suite of habitat and public primary responsibilities are to ensure communi- access programs for private landowners. Programs cation needs of TNC are met, where participation such as the Habitat Plot program provide annual or in marketing of PPJV accomplishments is relevant, upfront lease payments and cost share to establish their expertise can be used. or protect grasslands, wetlands and other habitats as well as providing public access for walk in hunting. We look with great Other programs, such as the CRP Access program, provide cost share to landowners for establishing excitement to a renewed effort herbaceous cover on USDA CRP contracts and pay- on behalf of PPJV partners in ments for walk in hunting access. Another program, achieving ambitious goals. the Working Lands program, provides a multi-year payment for maintaining conservation practices, habitat features and habitat management activities that have a positive impact on wildlife, while also

1.56 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org allowing pubic access. Private land biologists also role in interacting with agricultural groups and work with other partners, such as USDA-Farm Ser- elected and appointed policy makers. As an NGO, vice Agency, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation the NDNRT brings a flexibility and autonomy to the Service, USFWS-Partners for Fish and Wildlife, var- PPJV that can help the organization deliver both its ious NGOs and others to ensure private landowners conservation products and its conservation message. are aware of all available options. All dollars spent by the NDNRT are non-federal, In support of the PPJV, NDGFD has provided, since and thus provide much needed “match” dollars for 1990, a full-time position to lead and coordinate the NAWCA projects all across North Dakota. As a North state steering committee for the NAWMP/PPJV – The Dakota based NGO, the NDNRT can only engage North Dakota Action Group (NDAG). The major func- directly in on-the-ground work within the confines tions of the NDAG and the coordinator have been: of that state, but can and does assist with planning, education and policy level contacts and discussions »»Foster the development, maintenance, and implementation of a waterfowl conservation plan for North that benefit the entire PPJV area. Dakota that “steps down” the NAWMP and PPJV plans The NDNRT has been an integral partner in pre- »»Provide forums for coordination, cooperation, paring and implementing all aspects of the PPJV’s and information exchanges among the North strategic plan. In keeping with that involvement, the Dakota partner/members supporting the PPJV NDNRT keeps PPJV needs in mind as it develops its own strategic and operational plans, conducts its »»Develop and submit grant proposals for funding under the North American Wet- own projects and provides grants to other partner- lands Conservation Act (NAWCA) ship organizations. »»Monitor and input to the Farm Bill and In summary, the NDNRT views implementation of other federal and state legislation impacting the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, wetland and waterfowl conservation in the current context of an all-bird initiative, and delivered through the PPJV, as a corollary to its own NDGFD has had the opportunity to represent the mission. The funding, effective partnerships, and PPJV and the Central Flyway on the North Ameri- real on-the-ground accomplishments, combined can Wetlands Conservation Council and to provide a with opportunities to work directly with farmers staff person for the Council from 1995 to the pres- and ranchers to deliver meaningful conservation, ent. NDGFD has played, and will continue to play, a set this effort and this delivery mechanism apart. major role in both developing NAWCA funding and The NDNRT is proud to be a part of this successful in guiding the NA Wetlands Conservation Council and groundbreaking conservation effort. toward policies that accommodate the interests of the NAWMP and PPJV in administration of the NAWCA. PHEASANTS FOREVER NORTH DAKOTA NATURAL Pheasants Forever, Inc. (PF) is a non-profit conservation organization that has a significant footprint RESOURCES TRUST in the PPJV. The PPJV is home to some of the best The North Dakota Natural Resources Trust (NDNRT) pheasant country in the world, and thus some of the has played an active role in the Prairie Pothole Joint strongest regions for the organization. PF’s unique Venture (PPJV) since its inception, and has been structure empowers its grassroots chapters to make represented on the management board since 2001. a difference for wildlife locally, and this locally led As a non-governmental organization (NGO), the effort is often critically important for the successful NDNRT brings a variety of capabilities to the PPJV. implementation of projects. The mission of Pheas- The NDNRT works cooperatively with PPJV partners ants Forever is the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, and other conservation and agricultural partners public awareness, education, and land management outside the PPJV to deliver on-the-ground conser- policies and programs. vation projects and provides small grants to others to do both on-the-ground and educational projects. PF is heavily engaged in Farm Bill policy, technical In addition, the NDNRT plays a key communications assistance to private landowners, permanent habitat

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.57 protection, habitat restoration and enhancement, make full use of these conservation provisions and education, and outreach. PF works with private use them to provide upland nesting cover on a land- landowners across the U.S. PPR on approaches to scape scale in South Dakota. It will remain a high address the modern challenges of wildlife habitat, priority for us that all USDA programs continue to clean water, and pollinator declines. PF also part- provide protection of our remaining wetland habitat ners with agriculture on innovative approaches base, as well as provide options for willing landown- utilizing precision agriculture to improve farm oper- ers to restore wetlands through programs such as ations and natural resources. PF is a proud PPJV WRP and CRP. partner and looks forward to helping landowners Finally, we look forward to working with our neigh- and partners achieve PPJV Implementation Plan boring states, federal agency partners and NGO goals for wildlife, natural resources, and the people friends as a team to achieve the goals of the PPJV of the PPJV. www.pheasantsforever.org Implementation Plan.

SOUTH DAKOTA THE NATIONAL WILDLFE South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) REFUGE ASSOCIATION Wildlife Division staff intends to participate fully The National Wildlife Refuge Association is a non- in all PPJV activities. We will attend, participate in profit organization exclusively focused on protecting and remain an active member of the PPJV Manage- and promoting the 850 million-acre National Wild- ment Board and its various working committees as life Refuge System, the world’s largest network of assigned. We will host meetings when it is our turn lands and waters set aside for wildlife conservation. in the rotation. SDGFP is an original member of the PPJV Management Board and will continue its his- Founded in 1975, the Refuge Association’s mission tory of strong support and participation in the PPJV is to conserve America’s wildlife for future genera- partnership and activities as outlined in the 2017 tions through programs that protect, enhance, and Implementation Plan. expand the National Wildlife Refuge System and the landscapes beyond its boundaries. The SDGFP Wildlife Division recognizes our unique geographic role in helping to ensure success of the We rally together refuge friends groups and volun- North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Our teers, birders, hunters, anglers, ranchers, students, agency is committed to the protection, restoration, and other conservation nonprofits to create a collec- establishment and management of waterfowl habitat tive voice for the Refuge System. And, we cooperate in South Dakota. We place a high value on our game with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help staff and non-game bird resources and are especially efficiently and effectively accomplish an ambitious proud of our role in managing habitats for upland conservation mission for the benefit of the Ameri- nesting birds. We have a longstanding, strong tradi- can public protecting endangered species, biological tion of waterfowl management in South Dakota. We diversity, and all the wildlife that call the Refuge will continue to play an active leadership role in all System home. aspects of waterfowl habitat, management and regu- Our goals include building a strong constituency for lations. Our staff will continue their assertive efforts wildlife and giving wildlife a voice on Capitol Hill. to improve grassland and wetland habitats on both Our strategic approach to landscape conservation private and public lands. SDGFP staff will also con- also seeks to safeguard open space, rural ways of tinue its involvement in the NAWCA grant program life, and a healthy environment while ensuring that by providing important matching contributions to our wildlife heritage is protected for generations. project partners, or when appropriate, seeking grant The high density of National Wildlife Refuges and funds for specific department sponsored projects. Wetland Management Districts in the Prairie Pothole SDGFP recognizes the critical role of USDA con- Region alone would justify enthusiasm and cooper- servation programs in the success of attaining and ation for the objectives and actions identified in the maintaining our PPJV habitat goals. We will continue PPJV Implementation Plan. But it is also the recog- to play a role in the development and implementa- nition that refuges alone cannot sustain appropriate tion of these conservation programs. Our vision is to populations of waterfowl and other birds; a much

1.58 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org broader regional approach towards crucial wetlands the Region 3 Joint Venture (JV) Office will assist the and grasslands is necessary. For more information, PPJV Coordinator (USFWS Region 6, Denver, CO) and see: http://refugeassociation.org/about/about-nwra/ the PPJV Management Board in a manner that is consistent with accomplishing the goals and objectives PRIVATE LANDOWNERS identified in the 2005 Implementation Plan. Two to four private landowners serve on the PPJV The USFWS will continue to serve in a leadership Management Board. These landowners represent role and to strongly support, promote, and facilitate their experience and perspectives as individuals and all PPJV activities. USFWS Region 3 and Region 6 as representative of locally led landowner-based program areas (i.e., Refuges, Private Lands, Realty, organizations. They provide perspectives on pri- Migratory Birds and State Programs, Ecological Ser- vate land conservation/conservation programs (i.e. vices and Fisheries) will work (within their respec- Farm Bill, NAWCA, State private land programs, tive program priorities) with the PPJV in developing etc.); risks to grass-based agriculural communities; and implementing partnerships and on-the-ground connect the PPJV to other landowner leaders and projects. Protection, restoration and enhancement serve as champions for rural ranching communities; of PPJV landscapes will continue to be a priority in participate in legislative and congressional commu- both regions. Program areas and personnel will col- nications beneficial to PPJV goals; and provide a laborate and coordinate across regional boundaries unique voice both to the PPJV and the Association where feasible and where opportunities and part- of Joint Venture Management Boards. nerships can be developed.

Currently, the PPJV Management Board includes USFWS (R3 and 6, respectively) will continue to two landowners/ranchers one each from ND and provide major funding support for the Habitat and SD. They individually represent the North Dakota Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) offices in Grazing Lands Coalition and the South Dakota Fergus Falls, Minnesota and in Bismarck, North Grasslands Coalition, in addition to their respective Dakota, to ensure development of strategic planning ranches. The North Dakota Grazing Lands Coalition efforts, development and use of spatial analysis and tag line is: “Promoting the health and regeneration Geographic Information System technology, and of North Dakota Grasslands” and their value state- development of decision support tools to address ment reads: “Coalition members believe in: learning landscape level habitat and population problems from the trials and experiences of peers; opening for PPJV partners. Recognizing that the differing doors to grass management expertise; sharing portions of the PPR often require different conser- alternatives and different perspectives; discovering vation strategies and actions, the two HAPET offices common goals and objectives and generating new will regularly coordinate and cooperate on PPJV/ ideas.” The mission of the South Dakota Grasslands PPR-wide conservation issues including planning, Coalition is: “To improve stewardship of grasslands monitoring, and cooperative research. through sustainable and profitable management.” USFWS (R3 and 6) is pleased to continue its support of the North American Waterfowl Management U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Plan and of the new migratory bird conservation The Regional Directors (Regions 3 and 6) of the U.S. initiatives including the Partners In Flight Landbird Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as members and Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and the Co-chairs of the PPJV Management Board, agree Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Plan. The with and support the roles and responsibilities as USFWS (R3 and 6) strongly supports the PPJV part- described in the 2005 PPJV Implementation Plan. nership in its continued focus on waterfowl and in its leadership role in developing the biological foun- Region 6 will continue to support and maintain the dations for integrated bird conservation. PPJV Coordinator and its responsibilities as the lead USFWS region for the PPJV. The Coordinator will USFWS (R3 and 6) is proud of the PPJV’s successful be responsible for ensuring the full implementation, conservation record and looks forward to continu- partnership development, and successful advances of ing their role as integral partners under the 2017 the PPJV as a whole. To the maximum extent possible, Implementation Plan.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.59 PLAN FOUNDATION APPENDIX B: INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Background over 300 bird species are migratory, nesting in the In 1986, with the signature of the North American U.S. or Canada and flying to Mexico, the Caribbean, Waterfowl Management Plan, a truly international and Central and South America for the non-breeding collaborative effort that involved Canada, the U.S., season. These migrants include waterfowl to Mex- and Mexico was initiated on behalf of waterfowl. ico, the Caribbean, and northern South America; The Plan’s vision included strategies for coordinated shorebirds to Mexico, Central and South America; grassland birds to Central and Northern Mexico; planning and cooperative management of habitat, and thrushes and warblers and many other land- with Joint Ventures as the major delivery system. birds to the tropics. Since then, there has been increasing interest in It is clear that many of the species that breed in developing cooperative strategies for conservation the Prairie Pothole Region spend the non-breeding of migratory birds in the Western Hemisphere. season outside the U.S. The hard work, energy, The Partners In Flight North American Landbird and money that goes into conserving breeding and Conservation Plan recognized migration across migration habitat in the U.S. and Canada may be international boundaries and strengthened its for naught if bird populations face limiting factors international component in the 2016 revision; the on the wintering grounds or during migration. U.S. and Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plans Human population growth, habitat loss, and other recognize the importance of hemispheric conserva- threats are increasing much faster in Latin Ameri- tion; and the North American Waterbird Conserva- can than in the U.S. Indeed, threats in the Western tion Plan encourages international conservation of Hemisphere are similar from Canada to Argentina: waterbirds throughout the Americas. In 2009, the fragmentation and loss of forests, grasslands and Mexican National Shorebird Conservation Strategy wetlands, invasive species, human population was published. growth, urbanization, and energy development. Cit- In 2004, the Western Hemisphere Migratory Bird izens of the Western Hemisphere highly value birds. Conference was held in Chile. Heads of wildlife The millions of dollars we invest in bird conserva- conservation for 25 countries re-affirmed the need tion here at home can be lost if a species’ needs to work together to conserve migratory birds of the outside the U.S. are not met. Fortunately, there is Americas. The Canadian-based Boreal Songbird Ini- increasing recognition within the bird conservation tiative observes that one of every four birds in North community that it must increase work across entire America depend on the boreal forests of Canada and bird ranges through conservation at the landscape interior Alaska. scale via effective conservation partnerships.

The U.S. and Canada have long history of collaboration, largely through existing partnerships for Activities to Date waterfowl, shared language, and to some extent, Partners in the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture shared economies. Many active conservation part- have recognized that conservation activities in the nerships have also long existed in Latin America prairies are paramount to meeting the goals of the and the Caribbean. In recent years, recognition NAWMP and other bird plans. PPJV partners have of our shared migratory bird resources and the also recognized that teaming on an international tremendous importance of Latin America and the level is needed and will contribute to successful Caribbean to global biological diversity have grown conservation in the U.S. and Canada, as well as on significantly. Countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, a broader scale. Teaming internationally brings pos- Colombia, Peru, and Brazil provide habitat for hun- itive benefits to the partners of the PPJV. Capability dreds of migratory and endemic species. In the U.S., and organizational capacity for conservation action

1.60 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org is enhanced; the scientific and ecological basis for The following are international activities in which priority bird conservation is strengthened; and the PPJ will play a role when partnership opportuni- skills, experience, personal education, and growth ties exist and/or when requested: of PPJV partners are expanded through interna- »»Develop “border free” landscape planning tools. The tional contact and communication. PPJV and the PHJV have jointly identified the merit of developing a standardized landscape model of the Recently, a group of PPJV and PHJV researchers entire Prairie Pothole Region. Over the past decade the investigated the spatial and temporal variation in PPJV and PHJV have independently developed impres- breeding waterfowl population size and distribution sive suites of landscape assessment, planning, and relative to habitat quantity and quality throughout modeling tools for their respective sides of the border. the majority of the North American PPR (see Doherty Immediate needs consist of standardizing wetland et al. 2015). This was the first work to develop seam- and grassland mapping conventions and developing less spatial data that transcends state, provincial, seamless GIS coverage that transcend state, provincial, and international borders to inform conservation and international borders. With this information, the PPJV and the PHJV can jointly monitor and model the planning in the PPR. Much of the data were further temporal and spatial shifts that occur in prairie bird developed to inform cross-border conservation plan- populations as they respond to the dynamic landscape ning for the Sprague’s Pipit, a grassland passerine and climate changes so common to the region. Doherty of conservation concern (see Lipsey et al. 2015). The et al. (2015) and Lipsey et al. (2015) made the initial collaboration developed for these research projects steps to standardize and integrate these products. will need to be continued to address cross-border »»Work with respective Joint Ventures conducting avian conservation issues. grassland conservation activities in Canada and The PPJV has been active in working with Canada’s Mexico. Where appropriate and when deemed a priority, the PPJV will work beyond these coun- Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (PHJV) in development tries on migratory bird conservation efforts. and exchange of biological and technical information and in assisting the PHJV in crafting agricul- The PPJV has a tremendous wealth of information, tural legislation that will positively impact birds of experience, resources and energy to enhance inter- Canada’s prairie provinces. The PPJV historically national bird conservation. Goals for conservation in worked with Mexico, assisting in the presentation the PPJV alone are daunting. However, the PPJV is of workshops on shorebird management, in shore- aware of its position in the larger context of shared bird research, and in helping develop organiza- threats to birds in the Western Hemisphere and tional models and experience for joint venture-like of its unique ability to contribute to conservation organizations with Mexican partners. Further, the partnerships. Although assistance will have a cost, PPJV historically assisted in the development of the PPJV recognizes that teaming internationally is part of its vision and operation. By partnering organizational models and landscape approaches to with support and assistance where requested and conservation of grasslands in the Southern Cone of possible, the PPJV will be truly helping achieve the South America. broad-based goals not only of the PPJV but of all- bird conservation. Action Items The PPJV strives to deliver all-bird conservation as LITERATURE CITED outlined in national and international plans. How- Doherty, K. E., Evans, J. S., Walker, J., Devries, J. ever, PPJV financial resources and partner efforts H., and Howerter, D. W. 2015. Building the foun- will be devoted primarily to meeting various plan dation for international conservation planning for breeding ducks across the U.S. and Canadian goals for conservation in the PPJV. Nevertheless, Border. PloS one, 10(2):e0116735. the PPJV also recognizes the need for and benefits Lipsey, M. K., K. E. Doherty,, D. E. Naugle, S. Fields, of international cooperation to attain collective con- J. S. Evans, S. K. Davis and N. Koper, 2015. One servation objectives. In the Prairie Pothole Region, a step ahead of the plow: using cropland conversion collaborative approach with the PHJV has benefited risk to guide Sprague’s pipit conservation in the both joint ventures and has contributed to a more northern Great Plains. Biological Conservation coordinated approach in prairie conservation. 191:739-749.

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.61 PLAN FOUNDATION APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Following a strategic communications planning are written simply and can be applied to serve as the approach, the PPJV developed a Strategic Commu- basis for messaging. Additionally, several over-arch- nications Plan for 2013-2017. This plan will guide ing messages are provided for each goal. the communications efforts of the PPJV staff and Tactics and tools are recommended for each of the communications contractors or new staff. It also goals and sets of communications objectives and aims to support activities by the PPJV Technical their associated audiences. The tactics and tools Committee, Management Board, and other partners. span a variety of approaches to engaging audiences, Five goals are highlighted for the PPJV that form the including educational, informational, organiza- basis for communications campaigns. tional, and scientific communications. Recommen- »»Build and strengthen the partnership dations for how to design and deliver the tactics and tools, as well as timelines and who is responsible, »»Ensure funding for conservation in the are provided. U.S. Prairie Pothole Region Evaluation allows for determination of whether »»Ensure effective landowner conservation programs/tools through policy at various levels communications objectives have been met and offers feedback for adapting further communications to be »»Integrate conservation into working lands more effective. The evaluation metrics and evalua- »»Link conservation activities to societal benefits tion tools for primary tactics and tools are outlined and should be developed in concert with the tactics Audiences are identified as those whose actions will and tools. influence achievement of a goal. These audiences are largely partner groups and require two-way The full plan can be found on the PPJV website: communication efforts. Twenty-two audiences were http://ppjv.org/assets/docs/ prioritized for communications efforts. resources/ppjv_comms_plan.pdf

Communications objectives are provided for each of the goals, grouped by segments of the audience that are similar. In order to achieve behavioral objectives, knowledge, attitudes, and skills objectives must be achieved. These communications objectives

Chuck Loesch

1.62 2017 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan | www.ppjv.org PLAN FOUNDATION APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Adaptive Management - A management Landscape Level Planning and PPR – Prairie Pothole Region plan designed from the outset to encom- Assessment – The planning of Priority Species – A species that is pass “learning by doing,” and to actively habitat features at broad spatial the focus of conservation effort. test hypotheses, and adjust treatments scales, and the evaluation of their as new information becomes available. effectiveness for conservation. Programmatic Decomposition – A process whereby one decides on the ACEP – Agricultural Conser- Limiting Factors – Chemical or physical mix of conservation actions to apply. vation Easement Program factors that limit the existence, growth, abundance, or distribution of an organism. Riparian Woodlands – Habitats BCR – Bird Conservation Region located along water courses and MBCF – Migratory Bird Conser- CRP – Conservation Reserve Program dominated by trees and large shrubs. vation Fund (the “Duck Stamp” CREP – Conservation Reserve provides it with funding) Spatial Prioritization – The process Enhancement Program of selecting the most important parts Mallard Model – A computer simulation of the landscape on which to work. Farm Bill – The major agricultural leg- model that predicts how mallard ducks islation in the U.S., which expires every will situate their nests in prairie-nesting Spatially-Explicit GIS/Habitat four or five years. The Farm Bill outlines habitat and then predicts their subse- Models – Quantitative, map-like provisions on commodity programs, quent recruitment rates (see https:// products developed using Geographic trade, conservation, credit, agricultural pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/1001541). Information Systems software and used research, food stamps, and marketing. to target locations where conservation Managed Areas – Locations at programs will be implemented. GBCA – Grassland Bird Conservation Area which actions are taken to achieve conservation objectives. Sustainable Land Use – Uses of the GIS – Geographic Information System land that can be maintained in perpetuity Measures of Performance – Quan- without depleting natural resources. HAPET – Habitat and Popu- titative metrics used to gauge the lation Evaluation Team efficacy of a conservation action. USDA – United States Depart- ment of Agriculture Habitat Niche – The portion of the NABC – North American Bird environment that an animal occupies. Conservation Initiative. USSCP – United States Shore- bird Conservation Plan. Human Dimensions – The science of NALCP – North American Land- systematically determining the attitudes, bird Conservation Plan. Vital Rates – Metrics of population beliefs, opinions, and desires of people. dynamics that are components NAWCA – North American of the survival and recruitment Integrated Bird Conservation – Wetlands Conservation Act. Conservation activities that are planned processes (e.g., nesting success). and executed in a systematic way so NAWCP – North American WHSRN – Western Hemisphere as to benefit multiple bird species. Waterbird Conservation Plan. Shorebird Reserve Network. Key Uncertainties – Those uncer- NAWMP – North American WRE – Wetland Reserve Easement tainties that are most critical to the Waterfowl Management Plan. scientific foundation of a program or WRP – Wetland Reserve Program NGPJV – Northern Great central to a scientific hypothesis. Plains Joint Venture WMA – Wildlife Management Area Landbird – A species that nests NPWRC – USGS Northern Prairie WMD – Wetland Management District and rears its young in upland Wildlife Research Center habitats and obtains most of its WPA – Waterfowl Production Area food and other resources from PIF – Partners In Flight. terrestrial (non-wetland) sources. WBPHS – Waterfowl Breeding Patch Size – The physical dimen- Population and Habitat Survey Landscape Design – The spatial sions of a habitat feature. configuration of habitat features intended PHJV – Prairie Habitat Joint Venture to benefit an array of bird species. PPJV – Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

SECTION 1: Plan Foundation 1.63